Thread: Hell: Phelps plans Shepard monument; Scot turns Buddhist Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001080
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
During my drive home last night, I was treated to a live radio interview with the indefatigable Reverend Fred Phelps. Note that I am using the title, "Reverend," in a strictly non-literal sense.
Fred (once poignantly and accurately described by Kelly Alves as "that old cunt") was promoting his plan to erect a monument to Matthew Shepard, the young gay man who was beaten to death in Wyoming five years ago yesterday. Before you get all weepy because Fred has changed his ways, I should describe the proposed monument. It will feature a picture of Shepard and will read, "Matthew Shepard; Entered Hell October 12, 1998, at Age 21; In Defiance of God's Warning: Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; It is abomination. Leviticus 18:22." Charming, no?
This monument is to be placed in a park in Casper, Wyoming, where the Shepard family lives. Apparently there is a monument to the 10 Commandments in the same park and there is some legal opinion that the city cannot allow one religious statement while prohibiting another.
The listening audience was treated to some creative biblical exegesis by Fred. He claimed that Jesus said one should castrate oneself rather than be gay, that Sodom had the same percentage of gays as we do now, and that the term "fag" is a biblical metaphor from the book of Amos. Fred also explained that the September 11 attacks were an outpouring of God's wrath on America for Bush having appointed a gay ambassador to Romania. Those of you who can't tolerate Bush will be pleased to know you have a strong ally in Fred Phelps.
Finally, a caller asked if, as a Christian, Fred shouldn't be showing more charity and compassion for Matthew Shepard's family. Fred got angry about this "ad hominem attack" and hung up. It was an amazing performance, leading me to say:
FRED PHELPS, GET THE FUCK OFF OF MY TEAM! You make me want to give up Christianity.
{title change}
[ 30. September 2005, 20:37: Message edited by: Belisarius ]
Posted by The Great God Dyfrig (# 15) on
:
:::shudder:::
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
What a sorry excuse for a human being.
Ironically by erecting a statue he will be fulfilling the Orthodox polite-thing-to-say-about-the-dead: "May his memory be eternal."
When, Lord, were you mourning, and I did not comfort you?
Matthew Shepard: ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on
:
Sometimes I wonder if Phelps is for real. How could someone be so hateful. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posted by Bongo (# 778) on
:
There must be a law against this. Mustn't there? Seriously.
(I meant against erecting the statue, not against free speech, obviously!)
[ 14. October 2003, 14:10: Message edited by: Bongo ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
What a twat.
It's not very Christian of me, but I detest with a passion such unbridled hate and intolerance as Phelps has poured out over the years.
Now I'm off to repent of my anger and hate. Something I suspect Mr Phelps has never even imagined he has to do.
[edited coz I think I went a bit over the top]
[ 14. October 2003, 14:19: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bongo:
There must be a law against this. Mustn't there? Seriously.
There's certainly a doctrine against it. God doesn't rejoice at the death of a sinner but rather that he may turn from his wickedness and live (says Ken, paraphrasing and conflating scripture simultaneously - if it was good enough for Paul its good enough for me).
Fred Phelps ought not to rejoice over something that God weeps over.
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
God doesn't rejoice at the death of a sinner but rather that he may turn from his wickedness and live (says Ken, paraphrasing and conflating scripture simultaneously - if it was good enough for Paul its good enough for me).
Fred Phelps ought not to rejoice over something that God weeps over.
The good reverend (by which I mean, "ignorant fuck") made it clear that he was sorry that Shepard died. However as a "gospel preacher" it was his job to make sure everyone knew that Shepard was in hell. I kept waiting for the gospel part of his preaching, but I never heard anything that was either good or new.
Posted by marmot. (# 479) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bongo:
There must be a law against this. Mustn't there? Seriously.
Or a city ordinance or something. You can't just go into a city park and put up a statue without permission. Phelps likely knows that but wants to stir up whatever trouble he can in the meantime. The man is seriously disturbed.
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on
:
Is there a link to this story?
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
The argument is that if the city disallows the new monument, they would have to remove the 10 Commandments monument that is already in the park. They are not allowed to favor one religious expression over another.
Posted by Bongo (# 778) on
:
But does a "memorial" count as a religious expression? I struggle with this one. A statue of the 10 commandments is, well, a statue of the 10 commandments. A statue of a person is a statue of a person; its purpose would be to commemorate the person, not to promote a religion.
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Is there a link to this story?
Here's a story from the local paper. You can also see pictures of the proposed monument at Phelp's own godhatesfags.com.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
The argument is that if the city disallows the new monument, they would have to remove the 10 Commandments monument that is already in the park. They are not allowed to favor one religious expression over another.
Not a religious expression. It's a libel on the dead/or some tort or other, which there are actually prohibitions against in some cases. Wasn't there a lawsuit in New Mexico or similar where a priest was sued for Infliction of Emotional Distress when he gave a sermon expressing similar convictions about the dearly departed?
Posted by ChrisT (# 62) on
:
Who the fuck is he to pronounce who is and isn't in Hell, heaven or anywhere else? With such continuing hatred as this it makes me feel ashamed to be associated with the same God as he purports to know.
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
The argument is that if the city disallows the new monument, they would have to remove the 10 Commandments monument that is already in the park. They are not allowed to favor one religious expression over another.
Not a religious expression. It's a libel on the dead/or some tort or other, which there are actually prohibitions against in some cases. Wasn't there a lawsuit in New Mexico or similar where a priest was sued for Infliction of Emotional Distress when he gave a sermon expressing similar convictions about the dearly departed?
So, is his goal to have the 10 Commandments monument removed by sparking outrage over his proposed statue?
How can it be libel? Do we know that it is untrue? What could be introduced as evidence of the truth or falseness of the statement?
Even if it speaks the truth, it is surely not acceptable to do so this way.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
I'm sorry -- I should be more clear. It is a libel-like offence, speaking ill of the dead. Of course it can neither be proven true or false.
Though I have to say, The Christ that I believe in would have cradled his poor battered body and taken his sweet spirit so horribly sinned against directly to Heaven, no matter what his sexual orientation.
[ 14. October 2003, 16:52: Message edited by: Laura ]
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
Phred Phelps is just a peach. Bless his pointy little head.
I am not sure about the one religious monument, therefore any old religious monument bit. How about no religious monuments? There seems to be some vague support in that constitution thingy for that position.
Perhaps the best thing to do with him is to ignore him. After all, if no one reacts to him he may not be able to get his jollies off doing what he does. In fact, the idea of Phred marching around and around with no one paying him any attention is just delightful.
Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on
:
As much as I agree with the sentiments expressed here, it bothers me that some of the terms used to insult this horrible man are descriptive of parts of the female anatomy. What does this say about women? How did this get to be a custom?
[ 14. October 2003, 17:37: Message edited by: Zeke ]
Posted by K˙ralessa (# 4568) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
So, is his goal to have the 10 Commandments monument removed by sparking outrage over his proposed statue?
For, if so, then he's leading the fight against graven images, and you Protestants and Piskies ought to be supporting him. After all, if you don't, that would mean you're supporting Judge Moore's side of things, which says we ought to have the Ten Commandments in every courthouse.
So which'll it be? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
Fred ... was promoting his plan to erect a monument to Matthew Shepard, the young gay man who was beaten to death in Wyoming five years ago yesterday....It will feature a picture of Shepard and will read, "Matthew Shepard; Entered Hell October 12, 1998, at Age 21; In Defiance of God's Warning: Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; It is abomination. Leviticus 18:22." Charming, no?
Doesn't this belong in K˙ralessa's thread about Tales of Incomptence?
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by K˙ralessa:
For, if so, then he's leading the fight against graven images, and you Protestants and Piskies ought to be supporting him. After all, if you don't, that would mean you're supporting Judge Moore's side of things, which says we ought to have the Ten Commandments in every courthouse.
So which'll it be?
I am on Judge Moore's side, thankyouverymuch. However, that doesn't mean I agree with the tactics proposed by Phelps in this matter. It is not necessary to agree with both or neither.
What is a Piskie?
Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on
:
I just figured it out! Now I feel dumb for not knowing right away. At first I thought it was something to do with fish.
Posted by babybear (# 34) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by K˙ralessa:
For, if so, then he's leading the fight against graven images, and you Protestants and Piskies ought to be supporting him. After all, if you don't, that would mean you're supporting Judge Moore's side of things, which says we ought to have the Ten Commandments in every courthouse.
Nah, don't like your choices, and therefore will not choose either!
This Presby is quite happy to have statues (although not of the Phred type), and doesn't mean that we need to have the 10 Commandments in every Court in the land...
Actually, I have changed my mind. I am happy with statues, and also very happy to have "Don't be a jerk" etc displayed in every court.
bb
Posted by BarkingMad Geo (# 2939) on
:
Nothing that a sledgehammer won't cure.
(ahem, referring to the statue, of course)
I am getting to like acts of civil disobedience more and more as I grow older. Like large crowds spontaneously forming and destroying "art" works.
Posted by eeGAD (# 4675) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Fred Phelps ought not to rejoice over something that God weeps over.
What about the Shepard family? Is there anything they can do to block the use of their son's name and image?
I really hate stupid people, like this Fred Phelps! I'm quoting a running buddy of mine when I say Stupid Should Hurt!
Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on
:
He is smart enough to get more attention than anyone ought to give him. It's not his intelligence (or lack of it), it is his hate-filled heart.
Posted by Gracia (# 1812) on
:
I understand “hating hate”; but IMHO the idea of expecting only “good people” to be on “our team” is outdated.
My pastor is fond of saying “the devil loves disguise”, & if you don’t expect the devil (or the personification of evil) to be especially active in the church, you are underestimating evil.
Posted by Flausa (# 3466) on
:
Fred Phelps has shit for brains and obviously has no understanding of the concept of grace. However, he doesn't make me want to not be a Christian, he makes me embarrassed that he's another American loon. Perhaps we can make a monument out of Phelps ... at the bottom of a lake.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
or, make a monument to Phelps and set it up in a park ... make sure there's a notice explaining how someone full of hate is Hell-bound ... maybe a quote from Scripture (say "Anyone who hates is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him", 1Jn3:15). I wonder whether he'll appreciate that.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zeke:
As much as I agree with the sentiments expressed here, it bothers me that some of the terms used to insult this horrible man are descriptive of parts of the female anatomy. What does this say about women? How did this get to be a custom?
It slipped out one day during a thread like this one. Sorry, Zeke, you are right.
Posted by BarkingMad Geo (# 2939) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zeke:
As much as I agree with the sentiments expressed here, it bothers me that some of the terms used to insult this horrible man are descriptive of parts of the female anatomy. What does this say about women? How did this get to be a custom?
Oh it probably became a custom around the same time as calling people Dickhead, Penis, and Ass.
These things are not about women, and vise versa. To put things in perspective, I know many men that are bitches and many women that are assholes.
Now back to our regularly scheduled programming....
Posted by Flausa (# 3466) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BarkingMad Geo:
quote:
Originally posted by Zeke:
As much as I agree with the sentiments expressed here, it bothers me that some of the terms used to insult this horrible man are descriptive of parts of the female anatomy. What does this say about women? How did this get to be a custom?
Oh it probably became a custom around the same time as calling people Dickhead, Penis, and Ass.
These things are not about women, and vise versa. To put things in perspective, I know many men that are bitches and many women that are assholes.
So does this mean that when we build a monument for Fred, we can call him both a dickhead and a twat?
Posted by BarkingMad Geo (# 2939) on
:
Actually the perfect monument would just be a dickhead.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
I would suggest that Phelps is unworthy of such biological distinction, and instead is more appropriately compared to smeg-encrusted shit.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Flausa:
So does this mean that when we build a monument for Fred, we can call him both a dickhead and a twat?
Though that would be lying by omission ... while both these are true there are so many more words we can use as well.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
I vote with RooK on this one...
If we do go Biological, how about "Waste of Spermatozoa?"
(p.s. Geo--re:Sledgehammer: get me a ticket, and I am there.)
Posted by Lyda Rose of Sharon (# 4544) on
:
Phelps makes me more sympathetic to the Gnostic outlook. This guy has to be worshipping the Demiurge(TM). He sure doesn't have a line on the True God.
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
Posted by BarkingMad Geo (# 2939) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
(p.s. Geo--re:Sledgehammer: get me a ticket, and I am there.)
Heh heh, this is how revolutions are started.....
We could form a Flash Mob to handle the situation.
I sincerely hope that all this talk from Fredshitbag is his usual bullshit rhetoric. But with him ya never know.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
If we do go Biological, how about "Waste of Spermatozoa?"
Erin once told some fuckwit, "You're one load your mama should have swallowed."
Posted by Degs (# 2824) on
:
Was Fred at Plano? I'm sure he would find a warm welcome in Anglican Mainstream.
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Degs:
Was Fred at Plano? I'm sure he would find a warm welcome in Anglican Mainstream.
That's a bit too far, I think.
Sieg
Posted by IanB (# 38) on
:
I learned yesterday that Fred Phelps once upon a time was a significant civil-rights lawyer, doing much pro bono work. Is this right? If so, what on earth happened???
Ian
Posted by Kenwritez (# 3238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
I would suggest that Phelps is unworthy of such biological distinction, and instead is more appropriately compared to smeg-encrusted shit.
No, because shit serves a useful purpose, as when it is processed into fertilizer, a good thing.
Phelps is a walking cry for mental help. I truly think he's insane. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posted by Trevor (# 3644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IanB:
I learned yesterday that Fred Phelps once upon a time was a significant civil-rights lawyer, doing much pro bono work. Is this right? If so, what on earth happened???
Ian
As far as I know, it is true. There is a document called Addicted to Hate which is a sort of biography.
Posted by Gracia (# 1812) on
:
Trevor, that is a sad story (also heroic,on the part of the son Mark, who started the truth-telling).
Thanks for the link. I could only stomach one chapter – do you know of any explanation for his hatred? Not that it would be either explanation or excuse; he is truly evil, to my mind.
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BarkingMad Geo:
Actually the perfect monument would just be a dickhead.
Flacid, of course.
Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on
:
I don't know, Bede, if you read enough of that thing you get the idea he was quite the billygoat.
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
quote:
Originally posted by Degs:
Was Fred at Plano? I'm sure he would find a warm welcome in Anglican Mainstream.
That's a bit too far, I think.
Sieg
Yea, Phelps would have to decide whether to side with the faction supporting female ordination or the side against it. It would take time away from his primary ministry of seriously annoying people.
As a person that used to live 10 miles from the Wyoming border in the southwest corner South Dakota, and was known to worship on occasion in the same parish that was Shepard's home parish (I knew the rector at that time), sometimes this gets a bit close to raw emotion for me. I don't have to apply too much imagination to the situation to see it all in my mind. ![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 3251) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by eeGAD:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Fred Phelps ought not to rejoice over something that God weeps over.
What about the Shepard family? Is there anything they can do to block the use of their son's name and image?
Someone took that photograph and I bet they didn't give Phelps permission to use it.
While ignoring Phelps is tempting, it does nothing for the distress of Matthew Shepard's family at this evil use of their son's name in the service of hate.
Posted by Big Chaz (# 4862) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
FRED PHELPS, GET THE FUCK OFF OF MY TEAM! You make me want to give up Christianity.
Don’t mate if we did that it would leave offensive hate filled bastards like that to run the show. After what I have read on his site, I agree about him fucking off though. He should start his own religinon as his personal crusade seems to have nothing to do with Jesus as far as I can see. That poor family grieving for there son. The idea that God hates any one is truly awful.. Fred wants to hope he’s wrong cause if God does Fred’s at the top of the hit list, fucking Pharisee. Do these people read the bible or are they looking at a different book to me? Seems to be pretty clear on what the big J thought of fanatical religious scum judging other peoples souls. I know that many in the church, my self included, fail to live up to God’s will. I have also experienced real evil in the church before now, on a personal level that time, but you have to face it down or at least stand up to it. This statue thing is beyond a joke. I presume to judge this much when the big J gets back for the final innings Fred better watch his arse. He will get a big surprise when some big hippie looking carpenter turns up says ‘...me? know you pal? your havin’ a laugh in’t ya?’ pastes the shit out of him and then tells him to piss-off .
Its at moments like this that I wish I did not hope for universal salvation. I guess nobody not even Fred is beyond the pail for a god so loving as ours but non the less what a total bastard.
Chaz
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Degs:
Was Fred at Plano? I'm sure he would find a warm welcome in Anglican Mainstream.
Even THEY would consider Phelps too Vulgar ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
Someone took that photograph and I bet they didn't give Phelps permission to use it.
While ignoring Phelps is tempting, it does nothing for the distress of Matthew Shepard's family at this evil use of their son's name in the service of hate.
Absolutely agreed, Duo.
Why can't he get off those poor people?
Posted by Grits (# 4169) on
:
I would hope some of the outrage on this thread is occasionally directed towards our ever-on-the-moral-high-ground media. Do you think it's just coincidence that we keep reading stories about Phelps and seeing his picture plastered all over the most inflamatory of scenarios? The press has discovered a button they can press that interests and infuriates both liberals and conservatives, crossing the lines of politics, religion and our society. Phelps brings out the worst in everyone, and the press knows that. Plus, I hesitate to add, he's a great big boil on the butt of Christians everywhere, and, believe it or not, there are those in control of what we read and watch who enjoy taking a poke at it whenever possible.
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Why can't he get off those poor people?
During the interview, Freddy-boy practically exploded with rage at the Shepards. Apparently he thinks that they are profiting from their son's death via donations to the Matthew Shepard Foundation. In PhelpsWorld, donations to the foundation somehow constitute a celebration of all things gay.
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
...he's a great big boil on the butt of Christians everywhere, and, believe it or not, there are those in control of what we read and watch who enjoy taking a poke at it whenever possible.
Actually, the hosts of the radio show on which I heard Phelps clearly consider him to be a complete asswipe, representative of nothing but his own sick imagination. The caller who Phelps finally hung up on was a Christian who took him to task for being uncompassionate. The hosts backed up the caller all the way.
Posted by K˙ralessa (# 4568) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
Actually, the hosts of the radio show on which I heard Phelps clearly consider him to be a complete [icky person], representative of nothing but his own sick imagination. The caller who Phelps finally hung up on was a Christian who took him to task for being uncompassionate. The hosts backed up the caller all the way.
Huh. If those hosts disliked him so much, how'd he get on that show in the first place? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posted by Lyda Rose of Sharon (# 4544) on
:
quote:
quote Scot-
During the interview, Freddy-boy practically exploded with rage at the Shepards. Apparently he thinks that they are profiting from their son's death via donations to the Matthew Shepard Foundation. In PhelpsWorld, donations to the foundation somehow constitute a celebration of all things gay.
Yeah, like he's not profiting handsomely from trashing Matthew Shepard's memory to his own ass-kissing sycophants. How much is he raking in from his fellow poison spewers?
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on
:
I think it a matter worthy of note that my company firewall blocks any site about Fred Phelps which I try to access.
Absolute utter total and complete fucking wanker. It makes me embarrased to be a christian when I have to share my description with people like this.
Posted by boppysbud (# 4588) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Degs:
Was Fred at Plano? I'm sure he would find a warm welcome in Anglican Mainstream.
Posted by boppysbud (# 4588) on
:
I understand that Phred had planned to protest Christ Church Plano, (the organising parish) as a "fag church"! ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
I don't know however if he actually showed up or not.
Posted by Bongo (# 778) on
:
I was reading my book (The Battle for God by Karen Armstrong) on the tube this morning, and it reminded me of this thread:
quote:
Carl McIntyre...saw hidden enemies everywhere. The mainline denominations themselves were part of a satanic plot to destroy Christianity in America.
...
[In the 1950s] McIntyre reached thousands more in his Twentieth Century Christian Hour, a radio programme which condemned all Christians who did not subscribe to his theology of hatred, and all liberal clergy, who might seem loving and Christian to the uninformed, but who were really "atheistic, communistic, Bible-ridiculing, blood-despising, name-calling, sex-manacled sons of green-eyed monsters."
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by K˙ralessa:
Huh. If those hosts disliked him so much, how'd he get on that show in the first place?
Are there no radio or TV shows that delight in the poublic humiliation of their "guests"?
We have loads. Its become almost the norm.
At least you guys escaped Ali G. (OK, he was actully quite funny the first 10 times or so, but it wore off...)
Posted by Apothecary (# 3886) on
:
Scot says quote:
You can also see pictures of the proposed monument at Phelp's own godhatesfags.com.
That plaque looks removable to me. Who lives nearest? There will be a screwdriver in the post.
Matthew Shepard, his friends and family
Posted by MatrixUK (# 3452) on
:
Did anyone read the letter on his site that he wrote to the city council?
I nearly wet myself at the end, a full page rant is followed by a "with kindest personal regards and best wishes, i remain sincerely yours in Christ"
The guys a fucking loon.
Posted by MatrixUK (# 3452) on
:
And i've just read the second letter on the site where he talks about his church holding a "gospel celebration of the 5th anniversary of Matthews Entry to Hell"
What is the guy taking. A gospel celebration of someone's entry to hell? (leaving aside whether matthew is there or not) surely a gospel weeping and wailing!
It's a good job i'm not God.....Lightning would be far too tempting a thing to have.
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by K˙ralessa:
Huh. If those hosts disliked him so much, how'd he get on that show in the first place?
This particular radio show (John and Ken on KFI, AM 640) does political topics and current events. About half of the guests are people with whom the the hosts disagree. The ones they respect, they argue with. The ones they don't (like Phelps) are allowed to run on at the mouth and make themselves look stupid in public.
The only thing anti-Christian was Phelps's own attitude.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
As I'm not a liberal but a real socialist can I say that there are times when [deletion] can work wonders.
Like if it was my son who died, and Phelps started talking like this about him, and I [deletion], then you would sympathise I hope?
Not that I'm condoning terrorism here you understand, just popular direct action. It's only terrorism when you do it to someone who isn't the bad guy. It looks as if Phelps is the bad guy. So tha makes it self defence, right?
Though I doubt if I will be raiding the issue at the Deanery Synod this evening.
[Edited to avoid legal issues]
[ 15. October 2003, 15:46: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posted by Grey Face (# 4682) on
:
[quote of above post deleted]
Of course not. I couldn't condone that. It would be a horrific act of vengeance.
Well, maybe you could [deleted] just a little bit. Kind of "[deleted] in love".
[Edited to avoid legal issues]
[ 15. October 2003, 15:47: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Grey Face:
Kind of "[deleted] in love".
I always get very upset when I hear people saying that you should chastise (by which they mean beat) yopur children "in love", not anger; that you ought to be able and willing to beat your children when they have broken some rule, without actually feeling any anger at the time, just love and a determination to treat them well.
Its hard to imagine anything more calculated to kill feeling and destroy the emotional life of both parent and child.
I wonder if Fred Phelps's dad used to beat him "in love".
[Edited to avoid legal issues]
[ 15. October 2003, 15:48: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
Admin hat on
Hold it right there, folks. If you want to discuss violent action you might want to take, you'll have to get your own website to do it. Ship of Fools cannot afford to defend even the most frivolous of lawsuits.
Admin hat off
Posted by Grey Face (# 4682) on
:
Ken: I agree, totally. I was attempting to take the Michael out of the concept.
RuthW: Sorry. Feel free to delete any posts of mine that infringe the rules.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
Just did some editing. Thanks for your cooperation.
RuthW
Member Admin
Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on
:
Someone should commission a gigantic bronze sculpture of Fred Phelps in an uncompromisingly strong homosexual act and place it in the closest public proximity to his home and/or church.
Why not.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
So now "[delete]" and "[deletion]" are in there and they change the meaning not at all. In fact they look sort of threatening, like "terminate with extreme prejudice".
I would not want to be [deleted].
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Riv:
Why not.
Because that would reduce you to his level. Do you really want to go there?
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I would not want to be [deleted].
But I would only [delete] you in love, ken.
Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on
:
It doesn't 'lower' me. It simply communicates on a (his) predetermined, albeit depravedly low level. He's not going to be enlightened, from what I've gathered, by anyone or anything else. I don't think that giving someone a dose of their own medicine reduces the administrator of such.
The High Road just doesn't work w/everybody.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Riv:
The High Road just doesn't work w/everybody.
Seriously for a minute, that doesn't mean that we as Christians (those of us who are Christians) should not try it though. "Love your enemies" and all that.
The take-home message from this thread being, I suppose, that some of us have identified Mr. Phelps as an enemy, rather than as a curmudgeonly friend.
Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on
:
Feeling any kind of "love" for Mr. Phelps is beyond my ability. This may show my shortcomings as a Christian, but after reading the accounts of how his children and wife were treated, as well as his own family and in-laws, I am convinced he has not one ounce of love for anyone on earth. All I can work up is a little half-hearted pity, and that is mighty difficult for me.
Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on
:
Right ken, you do have a point (as usual!). But there's plenty of impetus within our faith's teachings to prevent radically aggregious members from continuing wrong actions. The monument he's pursuing crosses my line of brotherly tolerance in that regard.
Posted by Wm Duncan (# 3021) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Admin hat on
Hold it right there, folks. If you want to discuss violent action you might want to take, you'll have to get your own website to do it. Ship of Fools cannot afford to defend even the most frivolous of lawsuits.
Admin hat off
Oh bother! I had such a clever pilgrimage to propose. Would've even asked MW's help in getting the vestments and implements right.
But I'll trust the local populace to keep Fred in check, and to do proper respects to whatever he dumps in their park.
Wm Duncan
Posted by Grey Face (# 4682) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I would not want to be [deleted].
Be grateful. If this was a moderated Usenet group, you could have been [snip]ped. ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Posted by that Wikkid Person (# 4446) on
:
Fred Phelps is a fag.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
I think you owe an apology to the good homosexual people of the Ship. Fred Phelps may be a Phucker, but he's no Phag.
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
And to the bad homosexual people of the ship too.
I hope he's not a fag. That would really be a case of "there goes the neighborhood".
You know, Wikkid Person, I've never seen a post done with spray paint before, but somehow you managed it.
Posted by QuakerCub (# 4728) on
:
This asshole gets funnier by the minute. Does he not know that the majority of the country think he is a joke?
Of course, those of us who are gay find it harder to laugh. He's a hateful bastard and I pray that he will be healed of his hate.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
Unfortunately I can't find him funny at all. Either very sad, or very angering. Or both. But not funny.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Wm Duncan:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Admin hat on
Hold it right there, folks. If you want to discuss violent action you might want to take, you'll have to get your own website to do it. Ship of Fools cannot afford to defend even the most frivolous of lawsuits.
Admin hat off
Oh bother! I had such a clever pilgrimage to propose. Would've even asked MW's help in getting the vestments and implements right.
Feel free to propose a pilgrimage and/or an appropriate service, as long as you don't advocate violence or anything felonious.
If I were designing a service appropriate to the erection of this monument, I'd use exorcism as my template.
Posted by tomb (# 174) on
:
Um, guess what, people....
If the city of Casper has a monument to the Ten Commandments displayed, then Fred Phelps may be able to put up an equivalent sign against Matthew Shepard.
It has nothing to do with religion; it has everything to do with free speech. If Casper has provided a venue for diverse speech (and to my way of thinking that's the only way the 10C can be displayed publically in the USA), then Fred's monumental screed is congruent to the 10C monument.
Forgive me for writing this. but sometimes my ACLU tattoo burns hotter than the Cross of Christ.
You cannot and must not prevent Phelps from spouting his filth. If you find a way to prevent his evil, someday, somewhere, when you least expect it, somebody will use that argument to prevent you from telling somebody that they are loved with an infinite love by Almighty God through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
You just can't limit free speech. Free speech has to be free to everybody--Even Fred Phelps. If you don't demand free speech for everybody, eventually, they'll find a way to make you shut up, too.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
Dammit, Tomb, I hate it when you're right. Not that it happens often, mind you. But when it does....
Posted by Lyda Rose of Sharon (# 4544) on
:
Well, in that case the best answer is a scathing- but tasteful- monument to Mr. Phelps. Post some of Christ's more loving words about sinners and forgiveness just to heap on the coals. And maybe a stylized bouquet of dead roses cast in lead, with a limp dick peeking out...ah, but that wouldn't be tasteful. Pity.
Posted by tomb (# 174) on
:
I'm sure, dear, that whatever you come up with will be very special and will have managed successfully to negotiate the ambiguities.
Posted by Grey Face (# 4682) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Unfortunately I can't find him funny at all. Either very sad, or very angering. Or both. But not funny.
I agree, but it seems to me that the best way to deal with such ideas as those he holds, is to ridicule them.
[edited to make the post at least semi-legible]
[ 16. October 2003, 07:38: Message edited by: Grey Face ]
Posted by Fiddleback (# 2809) on
:
Well I take my biretta off to Dr Phelps. At least he is honest enough to say what he really means, unlike all the mealy mouthed wankers who claim to 'love the sinner and hate the sin' which amounts to saying:
"As a Christian I love you, but I just hate what you are"
Phred gets straight to the point. He really hates you 'cos the Bible tells him to.
Posted by MatrixUK (# 3452) on
:
I love free speech, it's one of the few causes i would genuinely consider dying for. However, there is a distinction (now enshrined in UK law)between free speech and inciting hatred.
He can state a belief all he wants, but stirring up hatred and polluting the minds of others is a different thing altogether.
In the UK, if this were racial rather than sexual (there's something to consider) he'd be arrested.
Regards
M UK
Posted by QuakerCub (# 4728) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Unfortunately I can't find him funny at all. Either very sad, or very angering. Or both. But not funny.
You're right, MT. I certainly don't laugh at Fred Phelps, except occasionally for my own sanity. He is undeniably the most hate-filled human being that I have ever known.
Mel Brooks, when he was castigated for using Nazi's as a source of humour, said that ridiculing evil took away its power. Laughing at Phelps now and then is my way of reducing his power over me (for one thing, it keeps me from the intense rage that he can stir in me like no one else can.)
Hopefully, he will be healed of his hate. Until then, I will laugh at him when I need to and pray for him always.
Posted by Big Chaz (# 4862) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
Well I take my biretta off to Dr Phelps. At least he is honest enough to say what he really means, unlike all the mealy mouthed wankers who claim to 'love the sinner and hate the sin' which amounts to saying:
"As a Christian I love you, but I just hate what you are"
Phred gets straight to the point. He really hates you 'cos the Bible tells him to.
Do you always have to see eye to eye with someone before you love them? Isn't life and freidship prity boaring like this?
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on
:
sorry to disagree, tomb, but no, you're wrong. freedom of speech does not mean that anyone who wants to gets to erect statues in a public park. there are undoubtedly legal procedures that need to be gone through before approval can be gained, and i'm sure there are all sorts of totally legal reasons why approval could be denied for this monument.
(what freedom of speech does mean is that if he wanted to erect his on his own property, he probably could get away with it.)
[ 16. October 2003, 15:32: Message edited by: nicolemrw ]
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
Nicole, are you claiming that a different standard should be applied to Phelps than was applied to the group that installed the 10 Commandments monument? I'm not a big fan of the ACLU, but tomb's right about this one.
Posted by Bongo (# 778) on
:
I think I'm with Nicole on this one. If someone wanted to erect a statue in a public park depicting (for example) a gang rape, or something equally horrific, surely this wouldn't be allowed? You couldn't have such a horrendous, offensive image where anyone (kids) might see it.
Related thought: I once heard about a court case where someone was trying to ban drive-in movie theatres because the underage residents of nearby homes could see 18 cert. films on the screen from their bedroom windows. Does anyone know what the outcome was?
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on
:
no, scott, i'm saying the same standards should apply. do you honestly feel that this phelps monument is in any way equivilent to the 10 commandments one? do you not think that there are a myrid of criteria and standards that all prospective monuments are screened on? don't you at least suspect that this fails a few of them? do you think this one should automatically pass just because its religious?
Posted by Mr Callan (# 525) on
:
What nicolemrw said.
There are, I assume, rules and regulations about where one can place advertising hoardings and what one can put on them in the US? Surely, Messrs Pepsi and Coke would not be allowed to advertise their produce by displaying, say, an explicit depiction of the sexual act on the grounds that it is offensive? The defamation of Mr Shepard, I would have thought, is rather more offensive. A similar principle could, therefore, be legitimately applied.
Freedom of Speech is not an absolute. The municipal authority who owns the park could properly object that the proposed monument would adversely affect the park's ambience. Mr and Mrs Shepard presumably have rights of their own, particularly the rights not to see their late son co-opted as an anti-poster boy for Mr Phelp's particularly neanderthal brand of bigotry. The Police might legitimately object to the statue on public order grounds.
I'm not an expert on US law, there might be no reasonable grounds on which a person might object to this statue, and naturally Mr Phelp's rights should be upheld to the letter of the law. But it should be the letter of the law that killeth. If there is the slightest opportunity to prevent the erection of Mr Phelp's monument, then it should be prevented. We may be obliged to tolerate opinions we disapprove of, we are not obliged to encourage them.
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
do you not think that there are a myrid of criteria and standards that all prospective monuments are screened on? don't you at least suspect that this fails a few of them?
I think that the two monuments are likely to fail the same tests and pass the same tests. Perhaps if you have something specific in mind you could be more precise.
You and Mr. Callan are discriminating between two expressions on the basis of moral value judgements. How would you answer the atheists who object to the 10 Commandment monument?
As much as I despise Phelps, he has the same right to public express his opinions as I have to public state that those same opinions are sick and hateful. You can't have one without the other.
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on
:
i think you are not thinking deeply enough, scot. i am sure that there are regulations that would prohibit, for example, the ku klux klan from erecting a monument in the park. things such as (i'm just guessing here, but i'd be seriously surprised if i were wrong) that it would tend to harm the city in the eyes of the world, or that it could be inflamatory. erecting a monument in a public park is not a right. i don't know how it works in other places, but here in nyc, as far as i can tell from what i've seen, a monument or statue, or whatever can be offered to the parks dept, but they are in no way obligated to take it. to think that this is a free speech issue is absurd.
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on
:
btw, in case you are interested, here are the guidelines for donating works of art to nyc parks. i can see several of the guidelines that most likely would disqualify this proposed monument if the guidelines there are similar:
guidelines
Posted by Fiddleback (# 2809) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Big Chaz:
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
Well I take my biretta off to Dr Phelps. At least he is honest enough to say what he really means, unlike all the mealy mouthed wankers who claim to 'love the sinner and hate the sin' which amounts to saying:
"As a Christian I love you, but I just hate what you are"
Phred gets straight to the point. He really hates you 'cos the Bible tells him to.
Do you always have to see eye to eye with someone before you love them? Isn't life and freidship prity boaring like this?
Well it must look like that if you take the worms out of the can. But, if that's the case, how do you explain the chlamydian velocipede?
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
...how do you explain the chlamydian velocipede?
(emphasis by me)
An STD bicycle? You're a freak.
I'm totally reaching on assumptions here, but I assume you mean to connect what you might interpret as an increase of STDs as being related to god's judgement on increased homosexual activity. This means you're stupider than even I thought. Both homosexuality and STDs have been around for a long, long time - and the only thing likely to have increased is public awareness.
Posted by Fiddleback (# 2809) on
:
No, on cyclists, you dumb bottom. Haven't you read Leviticus?
[ 16. October 2003, 20:07: Message edited by: Fiddleback ]
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
No, on cyclists, you dumb bottom. Haven't you read Leviticus?
No, I have not read Leviticus. Do you mean to tell me that there's some biblical passage concerning mindless hatred of gays that's somehow connected to cyclists? Tell me more. I like a good laugh.
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
The incidence of increased STDs (not to mention infertility) among cyclists represents God's judgement upon them?
Posted by BarkingMad Geo (# 2939) on
:
Does this mean we need to wipe the bicycle seat before we sit down?
Maybe they should start providing those paper toilet seat covers with a bicycle purchase?
Latex seat condoms?
Posted by Fiddleback (# 2809) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
No, I have not read Leviticus. Do you mean to tell me that there's some biblical passage concerning mindless hatred of gays that's somehow connected to cyclists? Tell me more. I like a good laugh.
Yes, but God will not be mocked. You know that, don't you matey?
Let me put it this way. One side of my stainless steel cheese grater which I have just washed up has the word 'cheese' embossed on it while the other has 'carrots'. What do you think the manufacturers (Prestige Quality Kitchenware Ltd UK) would do if they knew that I had been grating cheddar on the side designated for carrots and similar root vegetables? They'd be fucking livid I can tell you. They'd hate me. You just figure that out if you can't be arsed to read Leviticus.
[ 16. October 2003, 21:48: Message edited by: Fiddleback ]
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
Yes, but God will not be mocked. You know that, don't you matey?
Bah, I know no such thing. If christianity in general isn't a mockery of god, Phelps certainly is. Actually, you're pretty funny too.
quote:
You just figure that out if you can't be arsed to read Leviticus.
I propose some quid pro quo. I'll read your Leviticus if you read some of my toilet paper. Just keep your gratings out of this.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
Fiddleback, I researched Leviticus about bicycle seats. Biblical scholar that you are, you were correct. Right there at 16:13 is the reference. I have quoted it here in its entirety for the rest of the Ship.
quote:
and put the incense on the fire before the Lord, that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy seat that is upon the bicycle, or he will die.
This, of course surprised me as I had been under the impression that the bicycle was invented by Leonardo Da Vinci. So I looked in my Midrashim to see what it said about the passage. Sure enough the bicycle seat referred to was used by a homosexual person and all of the people who rode it after him suffered the wrath of God in the form of saddle sores and aching knees.
What also surprised me was that other passage in Leviticus about Levite Priests and gel shorts.
Sometimes you just never know.
Posted by Big Chaz (# 4862) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
Well it must look like that if you take the worms out of the can. But, if that's the case, how do you explain the chlamydian velocipede?
Whossshhh! sorry mate, right over my head. Who and what am I explaining?
[My Jihad against UBB errors leads me to rip of your mouse-arm and flog you with it.]
[ 16. October 2003, 23:23: Message edited by: RooK ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
I'm gonna spare you the details, Chaz, but believe me when I say the concept of a chlamydian velocipede is unspeakably foul. Where the hell do you get this shit, Fiddleback?
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
What do you think the manufacturers (Prestige Quality Kitchenware Ltd UK) would do if they knew that I had been grating cheddar on the side designated for carrots and similar root vegetables? They'd be fucking livid I can tell you.
Oh come on. You're very well aware that von Campenhausen demonstrated quite convincingly that the καρρωτ and its cognates used in this document is post-classical and in context can cover any vegetable, fruit or dairy product.
Posted by Mr Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Scot:
quote:
I think that the two monuments are likely to fail the same tests and pass the same tests. Perhaps if you have something specific in mind you could be more precise.
You and Mr. Callan are discriminating between two expressions on the basis of moral value judgements. How would you answer the atheists who object to the 10 Commandment monument?
Nicole's helpful link gives a number of reasons why those responsible for municipal parks might choose to discriminate between the proposed Phelps monument and the 10cs. The criteria of park use, for example. Do children use the park, for example? If Mr and Mrs Representative-Atheist were taking their children to the park do you really think that they would object equally and indifferently to the 10 Commandments and the Phelps memorial when they were obliged to explain the context of both works of art to their offspring.
I'm not an atheist, so it would be wrong to claim that I can speak on their behalf, but if the positions were transposed I would not necessarily object to coming across, say, an extract from Lucretius or Bertrand Russell on a monument, whereas I would object vehemently to, say, a monument to Mao or Stalin. There is a difference
between disagreement and offense. Presumably in Wyoming there is a planning process, a consultation process when these monuments are erected.
It is entirely proper and reasonable for a public authority to establish a work of art which has a reasonable degree of public backing, even if it doesn't have unanimous acclaim. The establishment of a work of art which is acceptable purely to Mr Phelps does not fall into that category. For a parks authority to allow the establishment of a work of art on municipal property which causes offense to the ratepayers and which would cause all kinds of headaches in terms of maintenance (to avoid its defacement would require round the clock surveillance I imagine) would constitute the grossest misuse of the ratepayers money. Wyoming may be different, but in the UK (and New York) this is elementary local government.
quote:
As much as I despise Phelps, he has the same right to public express his opinions as I have to public state that those same opinions are sick and hateful. You can't have one without the other.
No-one is suggesting that Mr Phelps be imprisoned or killed for his opinions or their expression thereof. What Nicole and I are suggesting is that the ratepayer is not obliged to enshrine them on municipal property.
If Mr Phelps were to sign up as a Shipmate I imagine that the expression of his opinions in the robust manner he usually prefers would swiftly fall foul of the Hosts and Admins. This is not, I imagine, because the Hosts and Admins are opposed to freedom of expression but because the purpose of the Ship is not to act as a vehicle for Mr Phelps' homophobic ravings.
In the same manner the purpose of a municipal park is the creation of an elegant form of rus in urbe for the enjoyment and recreation of the inhabitants of, and visitors to, a given municipality. The establishment of a monument of the type proposed by Mr Phelps is not in conformity with this objective and therefore it is entirely appropriate for the local authority to reject his proposal.
The fact that you seem unable to grasp this elementary and, I would have thought, uncontroversial proposition illustrates in graphic form the intellectual bankruptcy of libertarianism.
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
Callan, you are apparently not as bright as I previously thought. The fact that one monument is more offensive than the other is only a difference of degree, not type. The fact that one expression is more popular than the other does not afford it more protection under the law.
Nicole, which of the NYC guidelines do you think allows Exodus 20, but not Leviticus 18?
It is not the role of the government to allow or disallow religious views and expressions. As tomb pointed out, your religious view may be the next to go. Better that the government stick to regulating actions rather than thoughts and speech.
It is up to the rest of us Christians to loudly, publically and frequently repudiate Phelps and the bile he spews. Shame on us if we try to leave our job for the Parks Department.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
Better that the government stick to regulating actions rather than thoughts and speech.
Hmm, isn't putting up a monument an action? Then again so is standing on a street corner yelling at folks ... where's the line between actions and speech? If taking a gun and shooting someone is wrong, is it right to shout from the street corner something that causes someone else to take a gun and shoot someone?
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
I wondered if anyone would point that out. Yes, putting up a monument is an action. So is saying something. Since the purpose of those actions is to communicate an idea, I think they should be considered "speech".
I believe that the line between speech and action should be drawn according to purpose. If the primary goal or result of an act is to materially affect another person, then it is an action. If the primary goal or result is communication, then it is speech. I'm sure someone will have a more refined set of definitions, but that's how I see it.
quote:
If taking a gun and shooting someone is wrong, is it right to shout from the street corner something that causes someone else to take a gun and shoot someone?
Barring some sort of direct command, how can my words cause someone to shoot someone else? If someone reads this thread and then vandalizes Phelps's memorial, am I responsible because I spoke out in condemnation of it? Surely a free adult is responsible for his or her own actions.
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on
:
Just seeking information here: are there no equivalents in the US to the English notions of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring an offence? Or incitement to commit violence? Or incitement to racial hatred? Or affray?
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on
:
scot, i am trying to be patient, i really am, but you are making it difficult. bit by bit here.
did you actually look at the proposed momument? it is not mearly a matter of a bible quote, but a "memorial" to the death and "entry into hell" of a specific person. quite a different thing. now straight off the bat, the nyc regulations suggest a _minimum_ of 5-10 years for a memorial to a specific incident or person. although it has been five years, for an incident of this type i think it could quite legitimatly be claimed that a longer waiting period is in order.
secondly, the question of appropriate location. where do you think an appropriate spot for a memorial to the "entry into hell" of a 21 year-old is? in a childrens plpayground prehaps? i don't think so. i can't think of any place that could be considered appropriate for that.
thirdly, the question of maintanence. given the response of people simply on this thread, (remarks about sledgehammers) i think that the parks dept. would have a legitimate reason for thinking that this monument would be extrmly high maintanence, and to reject it on those grounds.
then theres artistic merit. i'm not an artist, but frankly, the proposed monument looks like a tombstone. ugh.
i could go on but i won't.
it is not a "right" to erect a monument in a public park. if everyone had this right, there would soon be no more _park_ left. you can offer a gift, but there is absolutly no requirement for it to be accepted.
Posted by Mr Callan (# 525) on
:
I flatter to deceive. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
However the issue is not one of freedom of speech. It is one of use of municipal facilities. The good burghers of Wyoming are quite entitled to say we want the 10cs in our park (which we pay for) and not the Phelps memorial.
You say that the government should regulate actions and not speech. I think a case can be made out that the erection of a lasting monument in a public park, drawing on public funds for its upkeep falls within the former sphere rather than the latter. You also say that it is the responsibility of the Church to condemn Phelps rather than depending on the Parks Department to do it for us. I agree, but if the interest of the Parks Department and the faith of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ happen to coincide it is entirely legitimate to bring the fact to their attention.
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
The two monuments. One is a statement of beliefs held by a large number of people, on which an even larger number place some importance, and to which some might find offensive. The other, an attack on an deceased individual stating as fact something which no human on earth can know for certain.
I see a significant difference.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
The two monuments. One is a statement of beliefs held by a large number of people, on which an even larger number place some importance, and to which some might find offensive.
Sharkie,
you come close to convincing me that Scot is right - thyere's no point in just protecting the freedom to speak things "held by a large number of people, on which an even larger number place some importance".
Freedom of speech only counts if it it protects offensive bollocks as well,
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on
:
It seems to me that there is a distinction between allowing Fred Phelps to stand in a park in Wyoming yelling his head off about this unfortunate young man and his supposed destination, and allowing Fred Phelps to force an unwanted monument on the good citizens of the state.
To forbid the former is to restrict his constitutional right to free speech - although there might be municipal bye-laws against preaching or speaking to a crowd in a recreational area - I don't know how Wyoming orders such things. Is the right to free speech so sacrosanct in the USA that I'm allowed to speak anywhere at any time?
To forbid the erection of a memorial is to forbid an action. What he puts on the memorial is secondary to that. If he thinks the decision unreasonable, no doubt he can litigate. I would be surprised to find that the right to free speech includes erecting monuments anywhere I choose with whatever I choose to write on them. If it is alleged that the existing, ten commandment monument sets a precedent, I would hope a reasonable lawyer could distinguish the two cases. I can think of a number of differences, such as that one inscription is a quotation from a widely known book, the other includes a personal attack on the memory of a named individual.
On a lighter note, I used to listen to a very entertaining Radio 4 programme called 'Old Harry's Game' in which the central character, played by a comedian, was the devil. In one episode he explained to a victim "This is my gloating face. It's the one I wear when I greet American evangelists at the gate!". Is it very wrong of me to hope that's true?
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on
:
after thinking it over, i think i can sum up what i mean this way:
all the 10 commandments monument proves is that you can't disapprove a monument on religious grounds. it does not, however, mean the corrollary, that you must approve a monument on religious grounds. and there are many other reasons for disaproving this proposed monument.
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Sharkie,
you come close to convincing me that Scot is right -
That was not my intention. I am having trouble putting my thoughts into words, so I'll bow out.
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
Tomb, you started this. Where are you now?
Dyfrig, I'm not a lawyer but I believe there are equivalents to some of the
concepts you listed. However, we are not talking about abetting,
counselling or procurring an offence, nor incitement to commit violence.
Incitement to racial hatred does not sound like a concept which has a US
analogue, but I could be mistaken.
Nicole, don't let me tax your overworked patience. Say what you really
think. I hope it's more convincing than your argument that the Phelps
monument should be banned due to lack of artistic merit.
By the way, are municipalities in your world allowed to discriminate on any
basis that appeals to the parks commissioner, or is there a list of groups
and views to which he must restrict his discrimination? Enquiring minds
want to know.
Mr. Callan, you previously made reference to the NYC guidelines for monument
donors. That document stipulates that the donor must provide for the
ongoing maintenance of the piece. I'm not sure why upkeep is a factor here.
Surely you aren't grasping at straws of practicality because your case is
weak on principle?
I'm curious about your basis for claiming that the citizens of Wyoming are
entitled to discriminate between displays of religious art on public
property. Members of minority religions in this country have found many
battles to prove otherwise. Perhaps they didn't consider the justification
you are using. Let's hear it.
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on
:
ya' know scot, i'm beginning to wonder what your motive really is here. it would be nice if you would actually address the issues i've raised, though. i shall restate.
1. there is no freedom of speech issue involved because there is no right for anyone who wants to, to raise a monument in a public park. if everyone was granted such a right there wouldn't be any room left in the parks.
2. a direct quote from my last post:
quote:
all the 10 commandments monument proves is that you can't disapprove a monument on religious grounds. it does not, however, mean the corrollary, that you must approve a monument on religious grounds. and there are many other reasons for disaproving this proposed monument.
(i should have said "there are many other valid reasons etc.")
once again, i would like to see you actually address my points.
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on
:
ok, let me put this more concretely.
say i decide that i want to memorialoize my father in a public park. i commision a statue. its the most dreadful, awful, ugly looking thing you'd ever want to see. not only that, but it's covered with sharp spikes, very dangerous to little kids running around. and i offer it to the local park to put in the playground. quite rightly they turn it down.
so i take it back and put a bible verse on it and offer it to them again. so now your saying that they have to take it because its religious???
[ 17. October 2003, 19:38: Message edited by: nicolemrw ]
Posted by Eanswyth (# 3363) on
:
As someone who has, in fact, had a memorial installed in a public park, I can give an example of what actually happens. This park is a municipal park owned by the City of San Diego, California.
We lost two friends in one month a few years ago and I wanted to establish a memorial in the park where a large group of us spent most every Sunday afternoon. I had to contact the city Parks Department and get their approval on what and where the memorials would be. We wanted two benches, one for each friend, with his name and DOB/DOD on a plaque. We were given the option of purchasing the same style concrete bench used throughout the park and they would maintain it, or supplying one of another style, but we would have to provide sufficient funds to pay for X years' upkeep (can't remember how many). The text on the plaques could not contain religious content and had to be signed off by the Parks Director before the manufacturer could start work. I could express my preference for location within the park, but they could veto based on their intended use of the park.
I'm not arguing whether they have the right to ban religious content, just sharing what the process looks like. In fact, San Diego has lost some big lawsuits about religious content on public land. They chose, instead of removing the "offending items", to sell the land to private parties. I think they are now being sued over doing that without the consent (vote) of the citizens of the city.
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
Have you always been slow, or are you writing before your morning coffee? Nobody (especially me) claimed that any old thing must be allowed just because it has a bible verse on it. We are talking about a monument which appears to be similar in form to many monuments in many parks. Presumably its form meets the standards set by the Casper Parks Department.
What we are arguing about (at least those of us who are paying attention) is whether the damned thing can be rejected solely on the basis of its "unusual" religious content. If religious expressions were banned from the public park, then this one could be banned. However, that is not the case. Popular religious expressions are allowed in the park and that means that unpopular religious expressions must be allowed too.
I am going to hold a grudge for a long, long time over being made to defend Phred in any way. However, if there's one thing that irritates my bowels more than hate-mongering pricks masquerading as "gospel preachers," it's the goddamned thought and speech police.
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on
:
quote:
We are talking about a monument which appears to be similar in form to many monuments in many parks. Presumably its form meets the standards set by the Casper Parks Department.
its not the physical form thats the question here, i simply chose that for my hypothetical example because its the simplest to illustrate. the point is that the only reason you seem to be saying that they can not turn down this monument is because it contains religious content. that because it contains religious content it must be accepted irregardless of any other concerns or issues. this is plainly rubbish.
another example if you prefer. is the city obliged to accept a gift that will very likely cause it to be embroiled in expensive litegation (since theres a at least the potential for the shepard family to sue for big bucks on the grounds of something along the lines of mental distress. even if they didn't win, the city could still potentially be tangled up in law cases for years)
is the city obliged to accept a gift that could cause it signifigant bad publicity and concordent loss of revenue from businesses deciding they'd rather not be associated with it, and loss of tourism money?
is the city, for that matter, obliged to accept a gift from someone who does not live in the city?
and you have not yet addressed my point that this is not a freedom of speech issue because you have no automatic right to place a monument in a park.
btw, accusing me of all people as being soft on freedom of speech is the most absurd thing anyone has ever said. its the thing that i'm most fanatical about in the world. but this isn't a freedom of speech issue and all your convolutions and rants against the "thought police" won't mae it into one.
if it were a matter of phelps wanting to protest, demopnstrate, march etc (which in fact he is doing, if you read the casper tribune you will find out that he's planning picketts of six casper churches) then i would say that is absolutly his right. and it is his right.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
We are talking about a monument which appears to be similar in form to many monuments in many parks.
Similar in form, yes. But it's where it differs from similar monuments that is telling ... most such monuments will have words like "in loving memory of", the words on Phelps proposed monument are totally different.
Posted by MatrixUK (# 3452) on
:
Scot,
We're not slow, or stupid, or caffiene deficient.
We are aware of something that you patently are not, that at times there are competing freedoms. Your freedom of speech cannot be used as a freedom to incite hatred. Get it?
This is not about thought police, or anything else, it's about competing freedoms. And freedom of speech does have limitations, don't be so dogmatic that you can't see the obvious!
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on
:
it's not a freedom of speech issue. there is no freedom of speech issue involved!
you might, possibly, convince me that there is a freedom of religion issue involved. even that i think would be doubtful. but not freedom of speech!!!
Posted by Eanswyth (# 3363) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
Have you always been slow, or are you writing before your morning coffee? Nobody (especially me) claimed that any old thing must be allowed just because it has a bible verse on it.
Dear Scot,
Please address the person to whom you are responding. As this came right after my post, my blood pressure spiked for a few seconds because I thought you were addressing me until I read further.
Love muchly,
E
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
My apologies, Eanswyth. I must have neglected to refresh my screen before responding. My comments were not intended for you.
Nicole, in my experience, artistic expressions are commonly treated as "speech." In this case, the speech and religion issues are intertwined. By allowing a monuments of this sort in the first place, the city has created forum for the expression of different views. In other words, it is a forum for public expression, or speech, and they may not discriminate arbitrarily between those seeking to use it.
At least one of the existing works of art in this space is religious in nature. The proposed piece is also religious, but of a less popular nature. Therefore, if the city allowed one monument but not the other solely on the basis of the religious views expressed therein, they would be effectively endorsing a religion over another.
However, since you have MatrixUK and his masterful grasp of the US Constitution on your side, I am considering surrender.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Callan:
If Mr and Mrs Representative-Atheist were taking their children to the park do you really think that they would object equally and indifferently to the 10 Commandments and the Phelps memorial when they were obliged to explain the context of both works of art to their offspring.
There's an atheist here in California who has argued successfully against the use of the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance that is frequently said in schools. He doesn't want his daughter having to say those words or having to be odd one out if she doesn't say them. His entire case rests on the first amendment prohibition of established religion. Right now, those two words as used in the pledge are unconstitutional in the western states under the jurisdiction of the ninth circuit court. The case will be heard by the Supreme Court in its current session.
Atheists might not object equally to the 10 commandments monument and the Phelps monument, but that doesn't mean someone won't someday take Caspar, Wyoming to court over the 10 commandments monument.
Posted by jlg (# 98) on
:
I'm with Scot on this one. I'm a firm believer in the separation of church and state (50 years of being a non-Christian here in the good ol' USA will do that to you) and also a believer in the tenets of the ACLU (maybe I'll even give them some money after reading this thread).
The law, as I understand it, isn't crystal clear about religious monuments on public property. If it were, the Moore/10Commandments case wouldn't be on the list of possible Supreme Court cases.
My personal opinion is that any permanent display of a particular religious belief in a publicly-owned space opens the door to permanent displays by other religious beliefs. Whenever I read a letter-to-the-editor or whatever from a politician calling for posting the Lord's Prayer in public school classrooms, my (mental) response is "Fine. I have no objection to exposing the kids to moral principals. And so I'm sure you won't object when I show up with copies of the Buddhist Heart Sutra and photos of Baha'u'llah and the Pope to hang right alongside." If ardent Christians want large religious symbols placed in prominent public spaces, they're going to have to accept that other people have the right to display their religious symbols in those same places. Considering all the conflicting beliefs and dozens, if not hundreds, of little groups claiming to be religions which would push even my incredible tolerance for different beliefs over the edge, I think the government should err on the side of caution with respect to permanent displays.
On the other hand, ephemeral expressions of free speech are a bit different. Phelps has the right to hold a rally in that public park and espouse his views, just as a pro-gay group does, or the local churches to hold a hymn and carol Sing there at Christmas.
Posted by golden key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I wonder if Fred Phelps's dad used to beat him "in love".
I gather that's what made Charles Manson the way he was.
Posted by golden key (# 1468) on
:
Re free speech and the "monument":
The 10 Commandments are articles of religion. If you're going to make room for them, then you should make room for those of other faiths.
But what Phelps has planned is hate speech, incitement to riot, and libel/slander. Very different stuff.
Re what to do:
Blanket the place with Good Shepherd items. Appropriate both in theme and name.
Plant vines to cover the monument. Climbing roses come to mind.
Posted by Godfather Avatar (# 4513) on
:
Scot, if the administrators of a public building invest in a coat of graffiti-resistant paint, while at the same time maintaining a historic inscription on the building's exterior; and if the inscription is of the Ten Commandments and the graffiti is of the "God Hates Fags" variety; are they guilty of infringing the graffitists' right to freedom of religious expression?
It's entirely possible, I guess, that under the US Constitution the answer is "Yes", and that public officials have no right to guard against the defacement of public property if that defacement can be construed as expressing something. But if so, I would venture to suggest that the US Constitution is, in this regard, rather silly.
Phelps has the right to express his revolting world-view, but the administrators of public property are not obliged to allow him to use it as a forum. I mean, surely?
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MatrixUK:
We are aware of something that you patently are not, that at times there are competing freedoms. Your freedom of speech cannot be used as a freedom to incite hatred. Get it?
You clearly don't, since the US doesn't have such a law. If you want to get into a discussion about the US Constitution, it would be beneficial for you to have an actual clue and stop trying to overlay UK law on US issues.
Thanks muchly.
And Scot is correct on this one.
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on
:
A bit of ignorance always helps to keep the hell fires burning.
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
We're back to one of the big cultural divides here. The law in the UK is different from the USA; freedom of speech does have limits in the former, and this does affect our attitudes. The sort of statue described would never be allowed in the UK, and I'm interested to see that several American shipmates have doubts about it as well.
In the midst of all the rhetoric flying around, it may be worth observing that, although we limit freedom of speech in the UK, we do not live in a police state. Nor are those laws used in an arbitary way, and they certainly don't restrict any mainstream religious views. On this side of the pond such limits seem eminently reasonable; let's not get too worked up by the fact that the view on the other side is rather different.
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
Wanderer, as ken noted above, it's not the mainstream that needs protections.
Godfather Avatar, as nearly everyone on this thread has noted, we are talking about discriminating on the basis of content, not form. Your illustration would work better were you to ask if the building administrators could allow someone to spray paint Exodus 20 while prosecuting someone for painting Leviticus 18. The answer is a resounding NO.
Posted by offspring (# 4726) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Godfather Avatar:
Phelps has the right to express his revolting world-view, but the administrators of public property are not obliged to allow him to use it as a forum. I mean, surely?
the administrators of public property have alredy created a forum by allowing the ten comandments. the city's plan seems a good one to me.
Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on
:
Wow, this thread really does have everything. Except someone being told to pleasure themself with a rusty farm implement.
Erin, you're slipping I have a list of candidates, if you can't think of anyone off the top of your head.
And Scot? It's nice to see you going for the side of reason
Sarkycow
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
Sarkycow, I have amended my title just for you. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by TheGreenT (# 3571) on
:
<thinks> ahhhhhh- now if erin does what sarky asks...
... now we know whose *really* running the ship! ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posted by tomb (# 174) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
Tomb, you started this. Where are you now?
....
Forgib be, Scod. I hab had a cold and hab been tanked up on antihistabines and ab sleebig a lod.
Anyway. I'm better now.
The part Nicole didn't pick up on in my post, which is telling, is that in order to dodge the US constitutional prohibitions against the establishment of religion so they could put of their 10C monument, the park in question was set up as a place of public discourse. Free speech and all that. And free speech, as we all know, must be free for everybody. Even dear Phred Felps. It is a case of the municipal authorities being hoisted on their own petard. It has nothing, nothing, nothing to do with public aesthetics.
ACLU civics lesson 101: you can't set up a public forum for speech restricticted only to what you agree with or think is nice or think is acceptable. This is why latter-day Nazis have been permitted to march in parades all over the country. So have members of the Ku Klux Klan. For all I know, the John Birch Society sells kisses at county fairs. Certainly, the Italians celebrated Columbus Day in Denver with a parade through downtown while the native Americans and the PC crowd just about shit themselves on the sidelines. It was beautiful.
Dyfrig, to answer your question, no, there does not exist in any legal jurisdiction in the US--as far as I know; perhaps some of the scum-sucking US lawyers on the Ship could corroborate this--any statute that would restrict speech because it might incite to violence. At first blush, it would be absolutely illegal because of constitutional guarantees of free speech. Free speech must be free. Period. If you restrict it in any way, then it isn't free anymore. QED.
This is why Mrs. tomb & I give shitloads of money to the ACLU. Hell, these people defend some of the most disgraceful scum you have ever contemplated--people I wouldn't ride on a bus with. But dammit--and Nicole, you should know this; your a librarian, for God's sake--these people must be permitted to speak. They must be permitted to express their opinion in the widest possible venue--including offensive statues in parks. Anything that restricts even the most offensive speech can potentially be used as a precedent for restricting speech that I hold dear. And, Nicole, there are enough examples for this in the US as well as abroad that it should be a no-brainer for you. This is a liberty that must not be infringed upon. The consequences are potentially devastating, and they depend upon which particular idiot is in power at the time.
[ 20. October 2003, 04:04: Message edited by: tomb ]
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
quote:
But dammit--and Nicole, you should know this; your a librarian, for God's sake--these people must be permitted to speak. They must be permitted to express their opinion in the widest possible venue--including offensive statues in parks. Anything that restricts even the most offensive speech can potentially be used as a precedent for restricting speech that I hold dear. And, Nicole, there are enough examples for this in the US as well as abroad that it should be a no-brainer for you. This is a liberty that must not be infringed upon. The consequences are potentially devastating, and they depend upon which particular idiot is in power at the time.
OK - this doesn't hold true in the UK, and I'm proud it doesn't. I guess we'll have to agree to differ.
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
quote:
But dammit--and Nicole, you should know this; your a librarian, for God's sake--these people must be permitted to speak. They must be permitted to express their opinion in the widest possible venue--including offensive statues in parks. Anything that restricts even the most offensive speech can potentially be used as a precedent for restricting speech that I hold dear. And, Nicole, there are enough examples for this in the US as well as abroad that it should be a no-brainer for you. This is a liberty that must not be infringed upon. The consequences are potentially devastating, and they depend upon which particular idiot is in power at the time.
OK - this doesn't hold true in the UK, and I'm proud it doesn't. I guess we'll have to agree to differ.
Wow. I knew there was a huge divide between the US and UK mindsets. That post put it in starker relief than any I can recall.
Posted by Lyda Rose of Sharon (# 4544) on
:
Yeah. Like what if in some hypothetical time and place standing up for Jewish people was construed by a government as "inciting hatred" against the Aryan race?
Hypothetically, of course. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
No, no, don't start sputtering. I'm not implying the UK is in danger of sinking into fascism. I'm just saying I could well imagine fascists twisting such a tool to their own ends. And it wouldn't take much twisting.
[ 20. October 2003, 06:33: Message edited by: Lyda Rose of Sharon ]
Posted by Lyda Rose of Sharon (# 4544) on
:
Okay, I'm going to double post because throwing in mention of fascism is like a red flag to a bull even with my disclaimer. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
More likely with speech restrictions in the UK I see the chance of more and more reticence to confront issues in time to come- probably in decades - as "inciting to hate" devolves to "inciting to extreme discomfort" or "inciting to disgruntlement". ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
If any speech is controlled they'll nibble your free speech away like gerbils.
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
quote:
Wow. I knew there was a huge divide between the US and UK mindsets. That post put it in starker relief than any I can recall.
And that's exactly the effect your posts have been having on me Scot.
Posted by TheGreenT (# 3571) on
:
for the first time ever, after some recent us/uk type discussions, i think im going to say something ive *never* said before...
im proud and glad to live in the uk < >
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tomb:
Dyfrig, to answer your question, no, there does not exist in any legal jurisdiction in the US--as far as I know; perhaps some of the scum-sucking US lawyers on the Ship could corroborate this--any statute that would restrict speech because it might incite to violence. At first blush, it would be absolutely illegal because of constitutional guarantees of free speech.
Now I'm not a lawyer, but it would seem obvious that there would be an "incitement to violence" type law - just that where it applies is different in the US and UK. Surely id some mafia boss says "Frankie, blow that Tomb fellow away" and Frankie obeys because the mafia boss is his boss then the boss is guilty of a crime by virtue of what he said. If he said that in public it would surely still be a crime. If he said it infront of a crowd including some of his "employees" but without telling one of them in particular to do the deed would he still have commited a crime under US law? Somewhere the line is drawn. Now from what you say in the US someone standing in a public park shouting "The fucking fags are subhuman parasites who are an abomination before God and all God-fearing men have a duty before God to beat their fucking brains in" would be allowed under US freedom of speech whereas here suck a fuckwit would be arrested and charged with incitement to violence faster than he can finish his rant.
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on
:
There are all kinds of odd limitations to free speech in Europe for instance the Eropean court made a ruling limiting criticism of EU
institutions.
Quote from the article.
quote:
The ruling stated that the commission could restrict dissent in order to "protect the rights of others" and punish individuals who "damaged the institution's image and reputation". The case has wider implications for free speech that could extend to EU citizens who do not work for the Brussels bureaucracy.
The court called the Connolly book "aggressive, derogatory and insulting", taking particular umbrage at the author's suggestion that Economic and Monetary Union was a threat to democracy, freedom and "ultimately peace".
Posted by Godfather Avatar (# 4513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tomb:
in order to dodge the US constitutional prohibitions against the establishment of religion so they could put of their 10C monument, the park in question was set up as a place of public discourse.
I seem to have missed that aspect of the situation as explained -- my apologies. That does put a different complexion on things. (It also seems like remarkable stupidity on the part of the Park's administrators at the time. What would they have done if six months later a wealthy Satanist had come along wanting to erect an altar to Beelzebub?)
There does seem to be an Atlantic divide here. I consider myself strongly pro-free speech by UK standards, but this whole situation still seems absurd to me. I admit I'm ambivalent about our incitement to violence / racial hatred laws: used properly they seem eminently sensible, but as Lyda Rose of Sharon points out, there is the scope for a really wrong-headed government to misuse them for evil ends.
In practice, though, are there really no restrictions on freedom of speech in US law? What about the old chestnut of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre? I seem to remember hearing that was something the First Amendment wouldn't protect, but perhaps I misunderstood.
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
Perceptions are slippery things. From my (British) POV what American shipmates have described sounds like anarchy, where who shouts loudest wins. I'm guessing that, from their POV, the UK sounds like a police state, where the authorities are just waiting to pounce and extinguish free thought. Wasn't there a recent thread on these sorts of perceptions, and the trouble they cause?
Posted by Mr Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Scot:
quote:
Mr. Callan, you previously made reference to the NYC guidelines for monument
donors. That document stipulates that the donor must provide for the
ongoing maintenance of the piece. I'm not sure why upkeep is a factor here.
Surely you aren't grasping at straws of practicality because your case is
weak on principle?
Actually, I would have thought that practicality was a major issue as to whether a monument was established or not. If Mr Phelps has the finances to provide reputable security for twenty four hours a day and is able to maintain and upkeep the monument in the face of the damage it would doubtless sustain from those citizens who object to the sentiments expressed on it, then I concede that that particular practical issue evaporates. But it is entirely licit for a municipal authority to insist that a donor keep rigidly to any conditions made about the upkeep of a monument.
quote:
I'm curious about your basis for claiming that the citizens of Wyoming are
entitled to discriminate between displays of religious art on public
property. Members of minority religions in this country have found many
battles to prove otherwise. Perhaps they didn't consider the justification
you are using. Let's hear it.
According to yesterday's Observer clearly they haven't got a legal right. The 'opinion' mentioned in the OP was, apparently, the verdict of Federal Appeals Court for Wyoming. According to the Observer the local authority are considering their options but do not intend to permit the monument. This, I imagine, means that the Ten Commandments will have to go.
So my comments must be taken as being in the realm of abstract theory.
I would have thought that the celebration of the murder of a young man, established in a municipal park in the town where the victim's parents live was of a separate order from most religious sentiment. I fail to see why religious utterance should be privileged above secular utterance. A distinction along the lines that a swastika is offensive wheras a burning cross is a licit expression of protestant spirituality strikes me as eccentric. Nor can I see that a Christian minister is discriminated against by a municipal authority that erects a monument to the Ten Commandments but fails to celebrate the murder of a homosexual. Of course, Mr Phelps is an evangelical.
As I observed in my first contribution to this thread. It may well be the case that the American Constitution defends the inalienable right of Mr Phelps to celebrate the murder of Mr Shepard on public property. So be it. I do not have to live in Caspar, Wyoming. Mr and Mrs Shepard senior do. Hence my objection to this type of memorial.
You seem to think that because I do not hold that this is an unmitigated good I am a member of the
quote:
goddamned thought and speech police
I would have thought that there were a number of positions that could be taken between extreme libertarianism and totalitarianism. Your inabillity to discern this says rather more about you than it does me. All societies restrict the expression of speech in some way, shape or form. Democratic societies restrict its expression on the basis of its consequences. We would, I think, both agree that it is wicked to imprison Arius for denying that the Son is consubstantial with the Father. We would both, I think, agree that Arius could be legitmately prosecuted for shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre. Now I think that a monument celebrating a murder, located in a municipal facility and in the same town that the victims parents reside is closer to shouting "Fire" than it is to denying the consubstantiality of the Son.
Orwell, whose memory you invoke with your mention of thought police, once observed "If you want to imagine the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever". This is as accurate and poignant a metaphor for what this monument does to Matthew Shepard and his parents, as any I can think of. The fact that the action of the boot is religiously motivated and independent of the action of government does not mean that its acceptance promotes freedom in any meaningful way.
Posted by Godfather Avatar (# 4513) on
:
Actually, I'm getting more and more intrigued by this "place of public discourse" business. What if a sculptor wanted to erect a relational artwork, one that only worked in tandem with the Phelps "monument"? Another statue mooning it, say, or better still a brick wall erected right the way around it with happy gay couples frolicking outside? How do you protect this hypothetical sculptor's freedom of speech without infringing Phelps's, and vice versa?
Where does pornography fit in? Could someone erect an obscene statue in the park? Could a theatre troupe hold an orgy there, if they advertised it beforehand as a performance piece?
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
Tomb, scum sucking lawyer at your service:
quote:
18 USCA § 2385: Advocating overthrow of Government Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof--
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
18 U.S.C.A.§ 2101. Riots (a) Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including, but not limited to, the mail, telegraph, telephone, radio, or television, with intent—
(1) to incite a riot; or
(2) to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot; or
(3) to commit any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; or
(4) to aid or abet any person in inciting or participating in or carrying on a riot or committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; and who either during the course of any such travel or use or thereafter performs or attempts to perform any other overt act for any purpose specified in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) of this paragraph shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
These statutes are not exactly what Tomb was talking about, but they are as close as we get, most of the time. Occasionally an ill informed law making body will try on a piece of dumb legislation. What protects us from these statutes from being used to control speech is the first amendment and the courts. Where a statute with a constitutional purpose might be used in ways that violate the constitution, the violative applications are prohibited.
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on
:
The following is section 5(1) of the Public Order Act 1986:
"A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."
Would such a law be unconstitutional in the US?
[ 20. October 2003, 11:09: Message edited by: dyfrig ]
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
Yes. And thank God that it is.
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
To the best of my knowledge and belief, it would. The word 'insulting' for one thing, is notoriously elastic.
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
And Erin, I thank God that such consideration for others is enshrined in my country's law. I don't expect you (or Scot, or Lyda) to agree with me, but can you understand that I am proud of what it stands for?
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
Actually, I can't. I can't understand a mindset that holds the government has to worry about my pwecious widdle feewings. If someone insults or alarms or distresses me, so fucking what? That's MY problem, not the government's. They have enough to be getting on with.
[ 20. October 2003, 11:42: Message edited by: Erin ]
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
Wait a sec, here - I can't be getting this right. Do you mean that if someone threatens or intimidates someone else to get them to conform to their way of doing things, this would in no way be an offence in the US? Threatening or intimidating behaviour is unlegislated for in the US? I can't see this as exactly championing "freedom of speech" - only the freedom of the strong to silence the weak.
CB
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
To my mind, protecting the weak from the strong is the purpose of the law. This law is just one example of that broad principle.
Sigh. If we can't even understand where each other is coming from then the cultural divide is even deeper than I thought.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Threatening or intimidating behaviour is unlegislated for in the US?
Just telling someone "I'm going to kill you" or whatever isn't enough, usually, for any kind of police action. They have to exhibit threatening behavior for any charge to stick.
quote:
I can't see this as exactly championing "freedom of speech" - only the freedom of the strong to silence the weak.
I just don't get this. If someone who is stronger than I am tells me to quit making waves or else, my reaction is pretty much "take your best shot, motherfucker. In the meantime, go fuck a goat". And if they exhibit threatening behavior, I call the police. Until they exhibit threatening behavior, how the hell are they silencing me?
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
Erin refers to 'precious little feelings'. Speaking of the latter,the poet Leigh Hunt went to gaol for referring to the Prince Regent as 'a corpulent Adonis of fifty'. As I look at the statute cited by Dyfrig, it seems as if such a prosecution would still be possible in the UK. Is this really what you want, Wanderer?
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on
:
To be accurate, s.5(1)(b)* isn't aimed at protect feelings, but deals with people who, as a result of words are "likely" to suffer harrassment, alarm or distress.
The big, scabrous sore of a problem with this Act is "likely" - i.e. you don't have to prove that anyone was harassed, alarmed or distressed by someone shouting "Yuo fucking nigger". It's actually a crime where you don't actually have to prove that anyone was harassed, alarmed or distressed, just that someone, somewhere, might be.
It strikes me that if you took out the "likely" and the "alarmed or distressed", this wouldn't be that controversial a law if it were introduced in the US - after all, it is quite possible to cause genuine harassment through words alone, although perhaps the US would more likely regard this a matter for private, civil resolution rather than state prosecution, which is an argument I can appreciate.
The only time I came across a case under this seciton was when a guy was going around with a mirror, finding suitable occasions (don't ask me how) for putting it on the ground and using it stare up women's skirts.
* I'm assuming that 5(1)(a), as it deals with actions and potential violence, would be constitutional in the US.
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
Substiute Prince Regent for immigrant worker, struggling to keep body and soul together, and yes - that's exactly what I want. As I said, the law should be there to protect the weak from the strong.
Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on
:
Well, doesn't this just get more and more confusing?
I was going to suggest that the essential difference between UK and USA is that in USA your rights are inalienable. period. They can never be taken from you, nor can you give them up, whereas in UK your rights are only protected as long as you don't infringe another's right. So I have the right to free speech providing I don't use it to remove someone else's right to life.
But then I remembered that in the USA (in certain states), your right to life can be taken from you by a court, if you take someone else's right to life away rom them. And your right to liberty can be removed from you, by a court, if you remove someone else's right to property etc.
So basically, there are many and confusing differences between the two countries. And neither holds an entirely rational view, that logically follows through on all they do.
Great. UK and USA are both nuts. like we didn't know that already
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
I can live with that. Hail Sarkycow, the sweet voice of reason (now how often do you hear that?).
[ 20. October 2003, 12:33: Message edited by: The Wanderer ]
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Substiute Prince Regent for immigrant worker, struggling to keep body and soul together, and yes - that's exactly what I want. As I said, the law should be there to protect the weak from the strong.
But do NOT make those substitutions, Wanderer. Still in favor?
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
The concept is a sound one. What causes the greater damage - a good law (it is in my eyes) being misapplied, or the lack of any law at all?
(And I know you'll go for the former, just as you know I'll go for the latter. Are we getting anywhere here, or just demonstrating the width of the chasm?)
Posted by dorothea (# 4398) on
:
Erin wrote:
quote:
I can't understand a mindset that holds the government has to worry about my pwecious widdle feewings. If someone insults or alarms or distresses me, so fucking what? That's MY problem, not the government's.
Actually Erin, I think you are the missing the point here by geting too locked into general principles. This 'head the ball' Phelps is riding roughshod over the feelings of Shepard's family who not only lost their son but are now having their grief exploited in an unspeakable manner.
Oh yeah, and then there's the tinsy matter of setting up such a hateful monument in a public place. Phelps is not only causing untold misery but potenially endorsing homophobic murder.
Fuck principles, darling, get some sensibility.
J
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
were you to ask if the building administrators could allow someone to spray paint Exodus 20 while prosecuting someone for painting Leviticus 18. The answer is a resounding NO.
Don't be too hasty!
Obviously the city has to appoint a commission to investigate exactly which parts of the Pentateuch can be permitted, listing it verse by verse, and holding extensive public consultation on the matter - as well as taking legal advice, and seeking the views of ministers of all religions.
That's going to cost at least fifteen thousand dollars which could be spent on police or schools or shiny new floortiles for City Hall. Lets schedule the vote for the membership of the Inscription Commision for sometime the February after next, give them, say an 18 month remit before reporting back to a full council meeting.
And maybe then we can get back to Mr. Phelps's application...
Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on
:
quote:
tomb wrote: Dyfrig, to answer your question, no, there does not exist in any legal jurisdiction in the US--as far as I know; perhaps some of the scum-sucking US lawyers on the Ship could corroborate this--any statute that would restrict speech because it might incite to violence.
To add to the excellent post of Tortuf, my partner at the law firm of Scum & Sucking, Justice Holmes' majority opinion almost a century ago in Schenk v. United States established that speech that created "a clear and present danger" of violence wasn't constitutionally protected. (That was the infamous "fire in a crowded theater" case.) In the 1942 Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire decision -- and don't think I can't see your eyes glazing over from here -- the Supreme Court made it clear that "fighting words" are also not constitutionally protected. It defined the term to mean words that "by their very utterance may . . . incite an immediate breach of the peace."
But before the UK contingent gets all excited, be assured that prosecutions of this nature are exceedingly rare. As a general rule, Americans expect each other to put aside their pwecious widdle feelings and toughen up. We see the response to hateful and obnoxious speech not to be censorship, but rather counter-speech, such as the magnificent Angel Action protesters who follow Phelps around as an articulate silent rejoinder to his hate-mongering.
In the US, the distinction between offensive speech and true intimidation is a question for a jury in a criminal prosecution. Therefore, as the Supreme Court held last term, the KKK may lawfully burn a cross at one of their political rallies, but they can be prosecuted for burning a cross in the front yard of a Vietnamese family who just moved into a predominately white neighborhood. The irony is that at the last KKK rally in Washington, the 25 morons in white sheets were surrounded by 25,000 people of every race and religion waving flags and singing "America the Beautiful."
The biggest gulf this discussion is exposing is that people in the UK see the greater threat to free expression to come from individuals. Americans see the greater threat to come from the government. A lot of that may be attributed to the fact that our country was founded in a violent revolt against an evil authoritarian dictatorship that believed in things like the divine right of kings, an established state church, and the prosecution of publishers like John Peter Zenger who dared print anything in opposition to the interests of the Crown.
And by "evil authoritarian dictatorship," I am, of course, referring to, well, you, Chesterbelloc, The Wanderer, and TheGreenT. (Kidding! )
Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on
:
quote:
Dorothea wrote: Fuck principles, darling, get some sensibility.
Dorothea, your use of the "word" fuck has offended my sensibilities and caused untold emotional anguish. I hereby sentence you to 18 months in a federal penitentiary.
Howzit feel with the shoe on the other foot, Sugar Pie?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
unconstitutional in the western states under the jurisdiction of the ninth circuit court.
I always wondered what happened to the previous eight.
Maybe its like British military units - the existence of the 17th Lancers regiment didn't imply that there were 16 other regiments of lancers, but we didn't mind it if our enemies thought it did.
So maybe the idea is to give reprobates feeling that there are hordes of other Circuit Courts waiting just over the horizon, ready to charge, poised to pounce on lawbreakers and constitution-scoffers.
{And yes I know there really are 11 of them - 12 if you count DC - but, hey, its Monday)
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
Seems a fair summary to me Pres: quote:
The biggest gulf this discussion is exposing is that people in the UK see the greater threat to free expression to come from individuals. Americans see the greater threat to come from the government.
And I'm quite happy to be called an evil authoritarian dictator - it's good for my image . (As if I'm going to worry about what a load of brutal anarchists call me anyway.)
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dorothea:
Erin wrote:
quote:
I can't understand a mindset that holds the government has to worry about my pwecious widdle feewings. If someone insults or alarms or distresses me, so fucking what? That's MY problem, not the government's.
Actually Erin, I think you are the missing the point here by geting too locked into general principles. This 'head the ball' Phelps is riding roughshod over the feelings of Shepard's family who not only lost their son but are now having their grief exploited in an unspeakable manner.
Oh yeah, and then there's the tinsy matter of setting up such a hateful monument in a public place. Phelps is not only causing untold misery but potenially endorsing homophobic murder.
Fuck principles, darling, get some sensibility.
J
Fuck yourself, sweet pea, and get some cultural understanding instead of expecting the rest of the world to conform to UK principles and beliefs, you stupid bitch.
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
Dear dyfrig,
Upon reading your recent post, I find myself both alarmed and distressed that such a silly law exists. I am insulted by the public suggestion that my feelings need government protection.
As you are no doubt aware, my alarm and distress at your insulting law mean that both you and your government are in violation of section 5(1)(b) of the Public Order Act 1986. I trust that you will all lock yourselves up in a timely manner.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
scot
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on
:
Unless you shut the fuck up, Scot for Brains, I'll send down my storm troopers and you'll be in a concentration camp before you can say "antidisestablishmentarianism".
The above laws was introduced by a certain M. Thatcher of Finchley, who also introduced such enlightened legislation as section 28 of the Local Government Act (education authorities more or less banned from teaching about homosexuality), and whose successor Mr J Major introudced the befuddled Dangerous Dogs Act, which put the "jerk" into "knnejerk". "Oh my God! Some little kiddies have been savaged by dogs! Let's kill all dogs with sharp teeth!"
But then again, stupid laws is not a recent English invetion - we specifically criminalise someone for asking for money on the street, no matter how polite and humble they are. Nice, eh?
Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on
:
quote:
Erin wrote: Fuck yourself, sweet pea, and get some cultural understanding instead of expecting the rest of the world to conform to UK principles and beliefs, you stupid bitch.
Funny, Dorothea, but when Erin says "fuck" it doesn't offend my sensibilities in the slightest. Which demonstrates the problem with your subjective "pwecious widdle feewings" approach to the law. I'll say it again. The antidote to hateful speech is counter-speech, not government censorship.
Oh, and by the way, Dyfrig, could you loan me a tenner until next payday?
[ 20. October 2003, 13:39: Message edited by: Presleyterian ]
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
Wanderer, if I take your words at face value, you are naive to dribbling-point. The authors of the American Constitution, being given to clear-eyed observation of the world, that restrictive speech laws tend always to be enforced by, or on behalf of, those with power and money and influence, not the disenfranchised poor who you so shamelessly evoke. In other words, you're perfectly safe saying that the impoverished migrant worker down the road is a 'corpulent Adonis of 50' (he'd probably thank you for that) or whatever. The sensibilities of the rich will always be found to be more delicate than those of the poor. And I don't think the answer is to be found in the establishment of a large body of (well-paid) professionals devoted to prosecuting verbal insults to oppressed minorities.
And while we're at it, the Dangerous Dogs Act was one of the stupidest and most vicious pieces of legislation to have passed through Parliament, at least in living memory. Talk about government by tabloid!
Posted by dorothea (# 4398) on
:
Erin,
I would agree that Phelps is entitled to his views on homsexuality (hateful as they are) but putting up a public monument slagging off a dead person is deeply offensive. Further, as I argued before, Phelps actions would seem, indirectly, to support a murder. The second point is surely indefensible. Couldn't it be argued in a U.S. court of law as a reason to have the offending monument removed?
I wouldn't say I have an overly British cultural perspective of the world, although, my views will be, to an extent, formed via my own culture. I would hope, however, that does not gag my freedom to comment on something which happened in another country.
A final point. It is true that here in the U.K. we do not enjoy a bill of rights such as U.S. citizens do, but it seems fair to say that within the U.K. we do have clear notions of freedom; freedoms from as well as freedoms to. Currently we enjoy freedom from slander, as well as from fire arms. Whether others respect these freedoms depends on their individual moral codes, but the law exist to uphold them. I'm glad about that.
J
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
the establishment of a large body of (well-paid) professionals devoted to prosecuting verbal insults to oppressed minorities.
Ooh, you're no fun anymore.
My dear Pres - firstly, thank you missing me off your list of oppressive dictators. Great will be your reward in Belgium. However, as I work in local government, I'm afraid I do not have any of these "tenners" of which you speak. Is this something akin to these ten shilling notes and half-a-crown pieces that are rumoured to exist?
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
Dorothea, of course it's offensive. Nobody has claimed otherwise. Did you read even notice the OP? The fact that an expression is offensive doesn't mean it's not protected by the law; in fact, quite the opposite.
Also, the proposed monument does not mention, let alone encourage, murder. During the interview that prompted this thread, Phelps expressed his regret over Shepard's death. I have to grudgingly admit that he is consistent with Christianity in this regard. He believes that a group of people are sinning and hellbound. He wants them to repent, not die before having a chance to turn from their wicked ways.
Of course, I'm not sure why anyone would want to convert if Phelps is an example of what they would become.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
quote:
But dammit--and Nicole, you should know this; your a librarian, for God's sake--these people must be permitted to speak. They must be permitted to express their opinion in the widest possible venue--including offensive statues in parks. Anything that restricts even the most offensive speech can potentially be used as a precedent for restricting speech that I hold dear. And, Nicole, there are enough examples for this in the US as well as abroad that it should be a no-brainer for you. This is a liberty that must not be infringed upon. The consequences are potentially devastating, and they depend upon which particular idiot is in power at the time.
OK - this doesn't hold true in the UK, and I'm proud it doesn't. I guess we'll have to agree to differ.
And recognise that it is a political difference - not a national one. You will find a great many British supoporters of free speech, including me.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Threatening or intimidating behaviour is unlegislated for in the US?
Just telling someone "I'm going to kill you" or whatever isn't enough, usually, for any kind of police action. They have to exhibit threatening behavior for any charge to stick.
Nor here to be honest.
If you hang around in dodgy bars often enough, sooner or later you'll here something along the lines of "wait till you get outside, I know where you live, you haven't hear the last of this, we're going to have you.... blah blah blah"
No-one would ever get arrested for that - thought hey might get thrown out the bar.
Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on
:
You know, Ken, despite all that socialist claptrap that you spout just for effect, I think what you really are in your heart of hearts is, well -- and I mean this in the nicest possible way -- a Texan.
P.S. "Twelve if you count DC?" You sure as hell better count the D.C. Circuit since it's probably the most influential of the bunch. And you forgot the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, but since no one even in the federal government knows exactly what it does (patents or something?), it's an excusable lapse.
[ 20. October 2003, 15:01: Message edited by: Presleyterian ]
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dorothea:
Erin,
I would agree that Phelps is entitled to his views on homsexuality (hateful as they are) but putting up a public monument slagging off a dead person is deeply offensive. Further, as I argued before, Phelps actions would seem, indirectly, to support a murder. The second point is surely indefensible. Couldn't it be argued in a U.S. court of law as a reason to have the offending monument removed?
Nope. Then you have to remove all of the war monuments because some of your more insane pacifists consider that to be supporting a cold-blooded murder, too.
I'd be interested in hearing a justification for any of the arbitrary standards that a majority of the UK contingent on this thread feels are acceptable. So far, all I have heard is that "it doesn't offend someone". I am thrilled beyond words to say that in the US there is no right to not be offended, and I will fight against that with every ounce of strength and energy I have.
Posted by Mr Callan (# 525) on
:
The US may be different but war memorials in the UK tend to say things like "in honour of the gallant dead of two world wars 1914-1918 1939-1945" followed by a list of names, of those who were killed from the town where the memorial is.
If war memorials were put in German Towns with slogans like "Fritz Kraustenhammer d1943. Good riddance bastard. The only good Kraut is a dead Kraut" coupled with a lot of sanctimonious bullshit about freedom of speech then you might have a more exact parallel.
Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on
:
This may be an additional can o'worms, but we seem to be dancing 'round the tidy little issue of Hate Crimes, or at least the spirit of such.
Perhaps this is the US response (in law) to some of the UK sensibilities prevoiusly mentioned.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Threatening or intimidating behaviour is unlegislated for in the US?
Just telling someone "I'm going to kill you" or whatever isn't enough, usually, for any kind of police action. They have to exhibit threatening behavior for any charge to stick.
Nor here to be honest.
If you hang around in dodgy bars often enough, sooner or later you'll here something along the lines of "wait till you get outside, I know where you live, you haven't hear the last of this, we're going to have you.... blah blah blah"
No-one would ever get arrested for that - thought hey might get thrown out the bar.
It seems to me that it must depend on the situation.
I was once questioned pretty closely by a police detective about whether I had heard someone say "I want to kill her" or "I'm going to kill her" - this in a situation where the guy had exhibited quite an obsession with the woman. The cop may or may not have known what he was talking about, but he was very clear that if I had heard the guy say "I'm going to kill her" he was going to make an arrest, but that if it was just "I want to kill her" he couldn't do anything.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Callan:
The US may be different but war memorials in the UK tend to say things like "in honour of the gallant dead of two world wars 1914-1918 1939-1945" followed by a list of names, of those who were killed from the town where the memorial is.
If war memorials were put in German Towns with slogans like "Fritz Kraustenhammer d1943. Good riddance bastard. The only good Kraut is a dead Kraut" coupled with a lot of sanctimonious bullshit about freedom of speech then you might have a more exact parallel.
Bzzzt!! Wrong answer, try again.
I was addressing dorothea's "point" about how the US can forbid it on the grounds that it seemingly supports murder. Erecting memorials to people who died while actively trying to kill others would, in some circles, seemingly support murder.
My question is, how do you know where to draw the line? Whose arbitrary standards does one use? And why?
Posted by Mr Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
My question is, how do you know where to draw the line? Whose arbitrary standards does one use? And why?
Which is probably the real question. Broadly speaking there are forms of speech which all of us on these boards would consider objectionable - child pornography, informing an enemy agent of troop disposition during wartime, shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre etc. On the other hand there is the espousal of unpopular views such as those of Mr Phelps, the Nazis, people who think that flying aircraft into the WTC was a good idea etc. I think that we are all agreed that the first class can legitimately be prosecuted but that the second should not be.
Now at some point the latter category shade into the former category. If some wannabe dictator gets his kicks from telling a room full of skinheads that the problems of society are the responsibility of the Jews, then the classical liberal solution is to leave him alone. However if he makes the same speech to a raving mob outside a synagogue he has probably crossed the line to incitement to riot. However, if the skinheads in the first example later go out and beat up a Jew, he is not held responsible. This is a somewhat arbitrary distinction - people do not become Nazis by accident - but can probably be justified on pragmatic grounds and on the grounds of the individual responsibility of the skinhead.
The second question this raises is "what is the attitude of the state" towards these dangerous opinions. (I use the word 'dangerous' deliberately - it is not merely a matter of unpopularity, people who preach hatred are not in the same league as the Jehovah's Witnesses). Is it one of studied neutrality or is the state entitled to discriminate. The preferred US solution (it would appear)is that of neutrality. Extremist groups can use municipal facilities or put up monuments in parks. In the UK they would probably be banned from doing so.
Now this is one of the scenarios when American and Brit look at one another whilst thinking 'Martian'. Broadly speaking, having balanced individual liberty against social cohesion, in these instances social cohesion has won the day. Note that this is far from Stalinism. If Mr Phelps were a UK citizen he would be entitled to express his opinion, maintain his website and publish his journal (Christian Homophobe, incorporating Well Meaning Liberal, Useful Idiot and Petit Bourgeois Fellow Traveller). What he wouldn't be able to do is to use facilities provided from public funds to support his activities. Clearly for some US Citizens, this is an outrage against liberty, not to be borne. However I have yet to notice the tanks trundling down Whitehall as the Nazis seize power so it's probably a compromise that works at least as well as the American compromise. And the victims of hate crimes don't tend to find themselves immortalised on pieces of far right artwork in public places. So I'll stick with our arbitrary standards ta very much.
Still, I have a question. Surely as libertarians the moral to be drawn from this incident is not the value to liberty, in giving Mr Phelp's carte blance to erect pieces of dubious artwork in municipal parks. Surely, from your point of view, it highlights the weakness of letting the municpality own land in the first place?
Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on
:
Having gone back and re-read the proposed statement on the monument:
quote:
"Matthew Shepard; Entered Hell October 12, 1998, at Age 21; In Defiance of God's Warning: Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; It is abomination. Leviticus 18:22."
(If we are to believe Scot )
This does not appear to be inciting anyone to anything, so I'm not entirely sure that the UK laws about incitment would apply here (should the monument be proposed in the UK).
If Phred said:
quote:
"Matthew Shepard; Entered Hell October 12, 1998, at Age 21; In Defiance of God's Warning: Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; It is abomination. Leviticus 18:22. Consequently, anyone who kills a fag will be welcomed into heaven with open arms by Jesus."
then there might be a little more basis for application of said laws. However, as far as I am aware, Phred is simply making a statement of 'fact' (as he sees it), so they probably wouldn't apply.
Any scum-sucking lawyers care to comment here? Dyfrig? Tortuf? Pres?
Sarkycow
Posted by Wm Duncan (# 3021) on
:
I'm inclined to think Fred gets the mileage he wants out of announcing the intention to put up the damn monument, and inspiring all this attention. Sort of a mass-media troll, he is. And we feed him.
Wm Duncan
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
Callan, you can be happy in your world, I can be happy in mine. I'm happy that it works in the UK and that you all are just peachy with it. I would not be. It's a difference. Get over it.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
But not only is Fred Phelps allowed to say what he wants to say in the UK, half a dozen of us have said it here for him - in a forum likely to be seen by FAR nire people than a small monument in a park in Somewhereville, state-begining-with-"I" or wherver it is he is wanting to put it.
What seems to be getting the goat of about 1/3 of the Brits and 1/3 of the USAns posting here is that the suggestion is a monument in a public park. No-one has said that he shoudl be tprevented from putting exactly the same words on a website (as he did, long ago)
I suspect the difference is that people react to momuments as some sort of collective and/or official expression. If we erect a stonking great stature of a dead person in the middle of the city that implies that people in general want to celebrate that person, or that society expects us to, or that the government in power at the moment wants us to. Even then, in "democratic" countries, people are wary of sticking up statues to the current lot of bosses.
So some of us are reacting differently to momuments than we would to websites - even though almost none of us would ever see the proposed monument (which we just know is never going to happen) and all of us have seen the same words on the website - some of us in our own living rooms, where our children might read them.
So, in the emotional reaction of shipmates here there is an apparent distinction between public discourse - such as a momument - and private - such as a website - even when the latter is in fact far more publicised than the former.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
What's particularly entertaining is that amongst these anguished cries of how different both sides of the Atlantic are, you're really just picking two different shades of grey. They're probably even closer in practical terms than anyone would care to admit.
Ahh, free time. Gotta love it when people have too much of it. Except for Phred, of course.
Hey, here's an amusing thought. IF the monument actually does get built, wouldn't it be funny to attach a large helium baloon tethered by a long conductive filament during an electrical storm?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
This does not appear to be inciting anyone to anything, so I'm not entirely sure that the UK laws about
It's inciting the friends and relations of the dead man to vector their boots through the co-ordinates of Mr. Phelp's head.
Or, at any rate, to deface the monument.
[ 20. October 2003, 19:36: Message edited by: ken ]
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
Amos: quote:
Wanderer, if I take your words at face value, you are naive to dribbling-point. The authors of the American Constitution, being given to clear-eyed observation of the world, that restrictive speech laws tend always to be enforced by, or on behalf of, those with power and money and influence, not the disenfranchised poor who you so shamelessly evoke. In other words, you're perfectly safe saying that the impoverished migrant worker down the road is a 'corpulent Adonis of 50' (he'd probably thank you for that) or whatever. The sensibilities of the rich will always be found to be more delicate than those of the poor.
I agree with you, as I wipe the spittle off my chin, that in practice laws are often misued, and often favour the rich, not least because they can afford the best lawyers. So why have laws at all? Why not let everyone do what they want and accept the result as good? Because then the strong (physically or verbally) would dominate the weak, and you would have tyranny. Since this is a tendency inside human beings we must always be vigilant, and recognise when the law is being misused; I don't think it follows that we must therefore get rid of all laws.
Erin: quote:
Callan, you can be happy in your world, I can be happy in mine. I'm happy that it works in the UK and that you all are just peachy with it. I would not be. It's a difference. Get over it.
This is basically what I've been saying in my string of posts. There is a cultural difference here, both sides of the Pond seem to work well, can't we accept that we're different? Can both sides get over it please?
Ken: quote:
You will find a great many British supoporters of free speech, including me.
And me. I support free speech very strongly, and I believe there is evidence even on these boards of my supporting people with whom I disagree. However I do not see it as an absolute right, and believe it has to be balanced against various other rights that I, and others, also hold.
[ 20. October 2003, 22:09: Message edited by: The Wanderer ]
Posted by tomb (# 174) on
:
Interestingly, I just realized that one avenue where free speech is legitimately circumscribed in the US deals with protestors outside abortion clinics. I assume the justification for this has something to do with women feeling threatened, though I haven't paid much attention to the debate. Anyone care to review the case law on that?
Posted by Lyda Rose of Sharon (# 4544) on
:
There have been a number of situation where the logistics of speech have been circumscribed in the interest of everyone's comparative rights: if two or more divergent groups that are likely to disagree violently, one group gets one side of the street and one gets the other. The anti-abortionists can usually get within shouting range of clients and workers of a clinic but not so close that clients and workers feel physically intimidated. And in this age of clinic bombings and clinic assassinations this, I believe, is reasonable.
Posted by tomb (# 174) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda Rose of Sharon:
There have been a number of situation where the logistics of speech have been circumscribed in the interest of everyone's comparative rights: if two or more divergent groups that are likely to disagree violently, one group gets one side of the street and one gets the other. The anti-abortionists can usually get within shouting range of clients and workers of a clinic but not so close that clients and workers feel physically intimidated. And in this age of clinic bombings and clinic assassinations this, I believe, is reasonable.
I figured it was something like that.
Posted by dorothea (# 4398) on
:
Erin wrote:
quote:
I'd be interested in hearing a justification for any of the arbitrary standards that a majority of the UK contingent on this thread feels are acceptable. So far, all I have heard is that "it doesn't offend someone". I am thrilled beyond words to say that in the US there is no right to not be offended, and I will fight against that with every ounce of strength and energy I have.
Sure Erin,
I would defend the right to speak, write, represent through art or other media, ideas which others may find deeply offensive. But I think there is a difference between offending someone's values and using a hate crime as vehicle for propaganda. That's justification from where I'm standing.
While war memorials might offend pacifists, as Mr Callan pointed out they do tend to eulogize the dead rather than dissing them to hell.
Scot,
I did read the O.P. but got the impression that arguments on liberty had overidden it.
J
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
I am thrilled beyond words to say that in the US there is no right to not be offended
Unless, of course, you're a woman in a work area dominated by men.
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
quote:
Thus pontificated tomb:
Interestingly, I just realized that one avenue where free speech is legitimately circumscribed in the US deals with protestors outside abortion clinics. I assume the justification for this has something to do with women feeling threatened, though I haven't paid much attention to the debate. Anyone care to review the case law on that?
It was a federal law. Assuming a federal law is upheld Constitutional in the courts (legislative restrictions on political speech have to meet the stringent one-two test of compelling state interest plus least restrictive means of accomplishing that interest) it is okay and the protestors can be kept back 50 feet or whatever it is.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
Dear Laura, Esq.;
Your last post was very lawyer like. You have made us other lawyers on board proud. With that in mind, Presleyterian and I have started the law firm of Scum & Sucking. We would be pleased to expand it to three attorneys and rename it "Dewey, Cheatham & Howe." Required billable hours will be moderate, only 3,200 per year (pro bono does not count.) Care to join us?
Posted by Grits (# 4169) on
:
If you need a good (mind I said good, not honest) admin. assistant, you know who to call. I can plump up your billing, help you dodge annoying clients, conveniently "lose" almost anything, and arrange for you to be "at a meeting out of the office" for days on end.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
You are hired. I hope you don't mind long hours and no pay.
Posted by Grits (# 4169) on
:
No problem. I'll manage to skim off what I need from your books, and that, along with what I'll be taking under the table from clients, will keep me in spades.
[ 21. October 2003, 04:27: Message edited by: Grits ]
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
Skin off! yes! Excellent idea!
Posted by Laura (# 10) on
:
Oh, fab. As long as it's an LLP or similar.
Posted by JazzedUpRedHead (# 5091) on
:
So I was going to check out this monument on the website, when I mistyped the URL. MSN kindly suggested sites which might be what I was looking for, one being the "God Hates Figs" website. They have Biblical verses to back up their position as well. Also, some background info on Phelps, and what his estranged children have to say. Pretty funny overall.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
God Hates Figs According to the Prophecy.
Pay attention to the rules, please.
[ 21. October 2003, 20:19: Message edited by: tomb ]
Posted by dorothea (# 4398) on
:
As I suspected. Figs are incredibly nasty.
Ban them now.
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
But not as nasty as prunes. Ban them too.
Posted by MatrixUK (# 3452) on
:
Now that is a good use of free speech! And a very clever protest, i guess not many folks get there through typos (a being so far from i on a keyboard) but what other sites could we set up that would attract and trap the poor typist?
godhatesgags.com anyone?
Regards
M UK
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
godhatesrqtw.com
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally babbled by The Wanderer:
But not as nasty as prunes. Ban them too.
But I like prunes, especially when they're used in a Roman chicken recipe, though you can also use Damascus plums, in accordance with the prophecy.
David
Apicius rocks
Posted by JazzedUpRedHead (# 5091) on
:
I apologize. I did not realize I was breaking any rules. What rule(s) did I break?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
One of the odd assortment of temporary rules instigated for the amusement of some infantile members of this community. Don't worry, these rules will only be in force for a few more hours.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally babbled by Alan Cresswell:
One of the odd assortment of temporary rules instigated for the amusement of some infantile members of this community.
You take that back, you big poo-poo head!
quote:
Don't worry, these rules will only be in force for a few more hours.
Alas, I think you'll find that there are more than merely a few hours left. The front page states: quote:
Until 0100, British Summer Time, Friday, October 24
...in accordance with the prophecy.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I'll take nothing back? If I'd spoken a mistruth then I might ... but it is undeniable that the "rule" that JazzedUpRedHead "infringed" is one of those which are part of the so called Hosts and Admins "Day" (which I hope isn't one of these "days of Creation" things that last millenia). Or are you denying that there is more than an element of infantile behaviour being displayed recently?
And, 26 hours is only a few hours ...
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally babbled by Alan Cresswell:
Or are you denying that there is more than an element of infantile behaviour being displayed recently?
Seems like adult behaviour to me. I know of no infants who run web bulletin boards and impose silly rules on them. Or run web bulletin boards at all. Though I've seen 9-year-olds do it. But they tend to be quite sensible. Silliness sets in at puberty.
Begorrah.
Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Getting back on topic, what's the odds that Fred's a creationist? Different forms of insanity seem to follow each other around.
Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on
:
Gosh, Alan, that sounded almost as if you've had all the fun sucked from your very bones.
Praps you could, I dunno, not post/read until Friday 1am BST, if it's all pissing you off so damn much?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
What's this, you Hosts feeling all defensive because of a little bit of criticism over a policy decision? You feeling like showing your true infantile nature and go running the mommy Erin snivelling that this big bad muppet has been calling you names?
And, how do you know whether or not I'm enjoying all this whinging? Maybe I'm the wrong muppet ... maybe I should be Statler and Waldorf. Or perhaps I shouldn't even be a muppet? Maybe I'm Emu to Fiddleback's Rod Hull? Didn't think of that did you? Huh? Huh?
Two men in white coats drag Alan off as he continues babbling incoherently.
[ 23. October 2003, 12:26: Message edited by: Sarkycow ]
Posted by Fiddleback (# 2809) on
:
The inscription on the Hoover Dam is grammatically incorrect. See where all your freedom of speech gets you.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Well hello there Rod. According to what Sarkycow edited into my post I'm your Emu.
Freedom of speech is one thing. Freedom to speak as another person is entirely different. Sarkycow pretends to speak for me, Phelps pretends to speak for God ... not much difference as far as I can see.
Posted by Crśsos (# 238) on
:
Part of the problem here is that what most people are objecting to is the fact that this proposed monument is just another example of Phelp's vicious hatemongering. Unfortunately it's pretty obvious that Fred Phelp's religious convictions honestly call him to be both vicious and a hatemonger. As private citizens we can point out flaws in his Scriptural interpretation, but once the state starts telling people what they "really" should believe, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is effectively gone. The precedent was set with Caspar's Ten Commandments monument. It was an exceedingly bad precedent for exactly this reason, and I'm perplexed by the various supporters of 10C monuments who claim not to have seen something like this coming when that was the chief argument against them in the first place.
As an aside, the Caspar, WY chapter of the Fraternal Order of Eagles who donated the Ten Commandments monument in the first place have offered to take it back if that will keep Phelps from erecting his monument.
Posted by Fiddleback (# 2809) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crśsos:
Part of the problem here is that what most people are objecting to is the fact that this proposed monument is just another example of Phelp's vicious hatemongering.
And who the heck is Phelp? What's he got to do with it?
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crśsos:
the Caspar, WY chapter of the Fraternal Order of Eagles who donated the Ten Commandments monument in the first place have offered to take it back if that will keep Phelps from erecting his monument.
My hat, or cap, or doily, or whatever I'm wearing, is off to them.
Posted by Ultraspike (# 268) on
:
Since nicole's thread about the latest Phelps venture was closed, here's the Daily News article.
"When you teach children that it's okay to indulge in any kind of sex act that they like ... that it's okay to be gay, it is inevitable that they will end up being violent and doing things that they shouldn't," said Margie Phelps, who protested with a handful of relatives.
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on
:
since ultraspikes mentioned it, i'll just say that my short-lived thread was called "look what phelp's doing now" and said:
quote:
newsday article
ok, you have to understand that this is a semi-personal thing to me. i didn't actually go to this high school, but its one of the three in the high school district that i did go to school in (one of the others btw, is kennedy high school, of amy fisher "the long island lolita" fame. i didn't go to that one either.) so this is coming a bit close to home.
the hazing incidents in question have been a BIG scandle atound here, i think they've made news far enough afield that some of you may have heard of them, but fred phelps getting involved just leaves me going
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
Tomb closed that thread with the words: quote:
There is a perfectly good Phelps thread in Hell, and we don't need two.
You don't often find the words "perfectly good" and "Phelps" in one sentence on the Ship.
Posted by dorothea (# 4398) on
:
UltraSpike,
that is one unbelievable link!
quote:
Since nicole's thread about the latest Phelps venture was closed, here's the Daily News article.
"When you teach children that it's okay to indulge in any kind of sex act that they like ... that it's okay to be gay, it is inevitable that they will end up being violent and doing things that they shouldn't," said Margie Phelps, who protested with a handful of relatives.
Pity the handful of young relatives - see photo on Spikes link - being exposed to such biased (and tasteless) propoganda.
Posted by Ultraspike (# 268) on
:
I know these people are from Kansas, but it's quite unbelievable to put kids behind such hateful signs as God blew up the Shuttle (because of homosexuals)!
Posted by jlg (# 98) on
:
Ah, yes, only Kansas produces weird-ass fuckwits. New York City is made up of 100% calm, rational, well-adjusted people. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Ultraspike (# 268) on
:
I'll take our city fuckwits over those heartland crazies any day, jlg. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by QuakerCub (# 4728) on
:
The city fathers of Caspar, Wyoming voted yesterday to reject Phelps' "monument" to Matthew Shepard.
Praise God, from all blessings flow!
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
I am afraid that decision will lead to litigation the city may lose. Perhaps they should eliminate the other monument and ban all private message monuments. (They invited this kind of crap by having a ten commandments monument there in the first place.)
I think it would be better to bog Phred down in bureaucracy away from the limelight. That way his tiny little brain might focus on some other form of lunacy before the monument came to fruition.
Posted by Wm Duncan (# 3021) on
:
City Council decides to create monument plaza -- Casper, Wyoming Star-Tribune article.
Wm Duncan
Posted by dorothea (# 4398) on
:
Quote from the Wyoming Stsr Tribune:
quote:
However, neither Dan Barker of the Freedom From Religion Foundation nor Shirley Phelps-Roper of the Westboro Baptist Church shared Peryam's assessment of the city's chances in a court case defending the constitutionality of the historic plaza plan.
Why do I find it so ironic when libertarians and fundamentalists support each other? For short term gains, I suppose. Still, hardly an alliance made in heaven.
It'll be really interesting to see if this does come to court what the outcome will be.
A slight aside - This debate has also made me realise that here are some clear benefits from an alliance between Church and State. For example, in the UK Church aided state schools are quite common place (in England and Wales, I don't know about Scotland.)
I believe such schools are invaluable in introducing children (many from non-Christian or non practising homes) to basic Christian values and teachings, alongside English, maths, science and the humanities. For example, such schools stick with the national curriculum and creationism is not on the agenda. These schools are also obliged to ensure children learn about other religions too. IMHO, a rational education based on Christian values provides an excellent foundation for the development of enlightened values (Christian or otherwise). It might have done wonders for the like of Phelps and his ilk.
J
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dorothea:
Why do I find it so ironic when libertarians and fundamentalists support each other? For short term gains, I suppose. Still, hardly an alliance made in heaven.
Libertarianism and fundamentalism are far from mutually exclusive. In fact, there is a significant overlap between the two groups, at least in the US.
The rest of your post horrifies me so much that I'll need more time than I currently have to write a sufficiently scathing response.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dorothea:
A slight aside - This debate has also made me realise that here are some clear benefits from an alliance between Church and State. For example, in the UK Church aided state schools are quite common place (in England and Wales, I don't know about Scotland.)
There are also Quaker, Jewish, & Muslim schools in the same position.
Posted by dorothea (# 4398) on
:
Cheers Ken,
good point (doh)and R.C schools, even thought the C.E is the established church. And, in that case, I guess I have no real reason to support an established church.
J
Posted by dorothea (# 4398) on
:
Scot wrote:
quote:
The rest of your post horrifies me so much that I'll need more time than I currently have to write a sufficiently scathing response.
Hee,hee! I'll look forward to it.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0