|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: HELL: The Official SoF Phelps-watch Thread
|
kentishmaid
Shipmate
# 4767
|
Posted
Is it me, or does he look scarily like Ian Paisley? (Not that I'm drawing any other comparisons between the two of them).
[ 01. April 2007, 20:55: Message edited by: kentishmaid ]
--------------------
"Who'll be the lady, who'll be the lord, when we are ruled by the love of one another?"
Posts: 2063 | From: Huddersfield | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
Phelps actually makes Paisley look like a liberal, which is some achievement ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
You'd almost feel sorry for someone so wrapped up in obsessive hatred if it wasn't for the people he's dragged into his cult. The documentary was quite good at explaining why its so hard for the younger ones to leave. Their parents send them out every day to face the world's hostility and inevitably they grow up thinking that all outsiders hate them. Maybe it would help if more people could grit their teeth and reach out in love to the Phelps nuts instead of mocking and abusing them (not easy if they're picketing your kid's funeral, I know...)
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chukovsky
Ship's toddler
# 116
|
Posted
I must be very holy today (having been to morning service for the first time in a while) because my instinct was to go and sit quietly by their pickets and sing some nice songs about how Jesus loves you whatever you are like, and to light some candles and offer them some chocolate.
Would be interesting to see their reaction.
On a slightly more serious note, I was disappointed they didn't talk about any of the allegations of child abuse (it must be Shirley's generation that suffered this) or try and talk to the family members that were "gone", but then I'm also surprised they actually got permission to air it.
--------------------
This space left intentionally blank. Do not write on both sides of the paper at once.
Posts: 6842 | From: somewhere else | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clint Boggis
Shipmate
# 633
|
Posted
What an arrogant, evil old sack of shit. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
To corrupt the minds of his own family, so even a seven year old who doesn't understand their message ("God hates fags" if you missed it) gets injured because people hate them for spouting evil hateful lies. And then to tell the kids they are speaking God's word, surely THAT is taking God's name in vain if anything is?
Telling people that God hates them and laughing at the thought of people going to hell - how can they reconcile that with anything Jesus said?
Can't the children be taken into care so they have some hope of rehabilitation into society?
What happens when the old bastard dies (soon please God!) will his evil full-of-shit daughter just take over?
.
Posts: 1505 | From: south coast | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stumbling Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 7637
|
Posted
Pretty much all I know about the Phelps brood is what I've learned from the Ship, so this is the first time I've actually seen them in action.
I really do genuinely feel quite ill.
I have to say I've never seen arrogance like it in my life. Did somebody tear the page out of Fred's first-ever Bible that says 'God is love'? Because that's the only way I can square his claim to be teaching what the Bible says with reality. It seems to be obvious to everybody except himself and (some of) his family that all he's doing is projecting his own hatred and blaming God for it.
Sorry everyone, I know I'm rambling, but I need to vent and I haven't anywhere else to do it at present. I do actually feel sorry for him, and more so for the family who are trapped in this because, as Yerevan says, they know nothing else. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif) for the children. (Yes, I know it's Hell, but with an upbringing like that those kids need all the they can get.)
--------------------
Stumbling in the Master's footsteps as best I can.
Posts: 492 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TonyK
Host Emeritus
# 35
|
Posted
It was in many ways an incredible program!
Not just because of the way 'Gramps' Fred Phelps came over - convinced he was right and everybody else wrong; not even prepared to give Louis Theroux a decent interview.
Not even because of the girls' responses to some of the questions.
Not even because of the way they used their children.
Louis Theroux has done several of this type of interview - basically living with the people he is studying. All the other programs I've seen have shown him in a very laid-back mode - questioning and probing, but very non-commital in his reactions. That wasn't true in this program - I got the real impression that he was revolted by the way they interacted with the world and by their lifestyle. He had difficulty at times even continuing to talk with them.
For those who couldn't see the program, the BBC website is running some stuff here.(I don't know how long this will be available.)
I have never had much time for the Phelps clan and WBC. The information posted in the past on the Ship and my very occasional forays into the WBC websites has sickened me enough.
But this was awful, dreadful, pretty much unbelievable. Nothing I heard the Phelpses say had the slightest hint of the Christian faith about it - other than the use of some of the words any preacher might use. They claim to be bible-believers - but I wonder how they read John 3:16?
There are times when I could almost wish our societies weren't quite so free and tolerant! Some people and organisations seem to take 'freedom of speech' too far.
--------------------
Yours aye ... TonyK
Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
Jews are fag lovers?
And more - they killed Jesus, after all. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I watched it hoping to get some sort of idea of why these people believe such evil, hate-filled shit, but if there was an obvious reason, it didn't come across. There was no serious Biblical exposition to justify their crazy beliefs and practices in the whole programme, and Phelps himself more or less refused to answer any questions he was asked, in a quite breathtakingly rude way.
The one thing that really hit me wasn't the incredible rudeness with which they responded to the slightest challenge to their dogma, the fact that Phred's sermon was possibly the worst I've ever heard, apparently relying entirely on assertion, or even the scary way they laughed about people suffering eternal torment. It was the lack of any sort of consistent explanation of why they bother with their pickets. Apparently, people need to be told that God's punishing them - fair enough, at least its internal logic is consistent in a completely warped way. But if (as I think Shirley said) no one's going to change their minds anyway, why bother? What's it for? Is it just some bizarre way of storing up spiritual brownie points with the big, angry smiting bastard they seem to believe in? Why would he be interested in doing something that won't have any effect, and is his habit of killing random "fag enablers" (such a charming phrase) similarly impotent?
I wish Louis had pushed more about that, and also looked more into some of the throwaways that had more than a hint of a kind of prosperity gospel, but I suppose that's not his style. When the girl said that if she was run over, it would mean God had damned her, so it would be right to celebrate that she was dead, I felt sick. By the end of the programme, I was swearing at the TV, I was so angry. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
The question is, do I really believe in a God who loves the Phelpses and wants them to be with him for eternity? Can I? Should I? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
Phelps is definitely one of the better arguments against universalism...
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
No actually hold that thought....just picture the look on his face when he spots George Michael in universalist heaven.
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
...But if (as I think Shirley said) no one's going to change their minds anyway, why bother? What's it for? Is it just some bizarre way of storing up spiritual brownie points with the big, angry smiting bastard they seem to believe in? Why would he be interested in doing something that won't have any effect...?
Exactly. This question could just as well be put to a certain fanatic SA who can't resist beating his particular drum regarding Roman Catholic tradition (and with the same predictable results is just as ineffectual).
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
[qb] When the girl said that if she was run over, it would mean God had damned her, so it would be right to celebrate that she was dead, I felt sick.
I was completely confused by that, because I thought that these guys all thought they were going to heaven (even though nobody else was). Was it because she thought that the very fact of being hit by a car would indicate that God hated her too?
--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
The other thing that struck me about it was that we never heard them finish their pronouncements of hell and damnation with "but if you believe in God and repent you can avoid the flames". There was no gospel anywhere in their speech. Only damnation. That shows the totally screwed priorities to me.
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pine Marten
Shipmate
# 11068
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
[qb] When the girl said that if she was run over, it would mean God had damned her, so it would be right to celebrate that she was dead, I felt sick.
I was completely confused by that, because I thought that these guys all thought they were going to heaven (even though nobody else was). Was it because she thought that the very fact of being hit by a car would indicate that God hated her too?
Count me confused too. And didn't she say that her dad would laugh and rejoice that she was in Hell? Huh??
--------------------
Keep love in your heart. A life without it is like a sunless garden when the flowers are dead. - Oscar Wilde
Posts: 1731 | From: Isle of Albion | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
Was it because she thought that the very fact of being hit by a car would indicate that God hated her too?
Pretty much. It would be God's judgement.
I found the show very interesting. Like others I only heard of Phelps and WBC through the Ship and so there were some surprises for me. I had no idea that they were so few (just 71) and that they came mainly from the one family. Also they don't seem to believe in evangelism just 'picketing'. There's no attempt to engage people and convert them, just to rant and spew hate (God's hate no less!).
It was interesting seeing the way they can't actually respond to logical argument. Superficially they claim to want to spread their message (that's the point of the picketing right?) but in fact when Louis argued with them they just spout pre-packaged rants that were only vaguely related to what he was asking. When he persisted they displayed this exasperated annoyance as if he really knew that what they were saying was true but just wouldn't admit it. So Steve the ex-documentary make walks away saying Louis is being 'silly' and Shirley is reduced to saying "No chance poopy-pants".
The saddest thing was talking to the young women, the 21-yr-old in particular, who quite clearly would love to get married and is grieving the loss of that. And that strange mixture of internalised self-hated and defiance when she said "Who would want me?" nearly made me cry.
But the silver lining is that they are doomed as a group. They're not breeding and not winning converts. Also I don't think the level of actual harm they do is that great relative to the publicity they receive (and it does seem to be all about attention-whoring, why else fly across the country just to picket a funeral for 45 minutes?) It's bad for the families at the funerals but for the rest of us, we can and I believe should, choose to ignore them.
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
When he persisted they displayed this exasperated annoyance as if he really knew that what they were saying was true but just wouldn't admit it. So Steve the ex-documentary make walks away saying Louis is being 'silly' and Shirley is reduced to saying "No chance poopy-pants".
Basically, they're just kids with grown-up's bodies.
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Malin
Shipmate
# 11769
|
Posted
I only saw parts of it but they were heartbreaking in the mindless vitriol of it all.
There were scattered references to the law - including Louis asking if he would be killed for having a child without being married (as he has) the girl replied that she was sure it was death for adultery and homosexuality so she was pretty sure he should be killed too. She referenced the mosaic law - do they see themselves as under the law?
I couldn't understand (from what I saw) where Jesus fits in at all - the girl at the end said she was afraid of God's wrath and being sent to hell, she hoped she wouldn't be, but didn't seem to have the certain assurance of heaven that I usually associate with these kind of groups. What do they think gets them saved? Works? Law keeping? Picketting?
Can anyone enlighten me?!
--------------------
'Is it a true bird or is it something that exists within a-'
'It's a thing that is,' said Granny sharply. 'Don't go spilling allegory all down your shirt.' Terry Pratchett
Posts: 1901 | From: Norwich | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
That's kind of the point Louis made I believe: there's no reference to the New Testament, or Jesus' work etc. It's very Old Covenant it seems; odd, given that they hate the Jews...
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
The interviewer didn't seem to expect them to be clever. Nor to have a sense of humour.
From what we saw (and editing makes these things say pretty much what the editor wants) the Phelps family seems to have given as good as it got.
They must have been expecting a pasting. I wonder why they let him in? Fred Phelps himself seemed to say that he didn't want them in the first place but had been somehow persuaded. Maybe they want to be slagged off on TV. They seem to be pretty well reconciled to no-one liking them at school or college.
Picketing the funerals of dead marines must take some sort of guts. And they must realise quite how pathetially crazy they make themselves look to everyone else.
Have they ever been violent as far as any one knows? I'd assume that if any of them turned violent now they'd be surrounded by men in black visors in a blink on an eye, but did it happen in the past?
As for the anti-semitism, be fair. They say God Hates Jews, but they say God Hates America too. In great big unfriendly letters all across their church. Apparently God Hates Everybody, more or less.
Anyway, on the evidence of this, they don't have long to go on as they are. The old man will likely die and the next generation of girls doesn't seem to be getting married. So unless they adopt either polygamy or incest, they are dying out.
And they've just shown about half a dozen rather attractive, intelligent, and prosperous but very very naiive young women on the TV moaning about how they will never ever have boyfriends or husbands. At least some of the young men of Topeka must be up to accweting the challenge.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Earwig
Pincered Beastie
# 12057
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by davelarge:
The other thing that struck me about it was that we never heard them finish their pronouncements of hell and damnation with "but if you believe in God and repent you can avoid the flames". There was no gospel anywhere in their speech. Only damnation. That shows the totally screwed priorities to me.
This was the bit that puzzled me too. I'd had them mentally pegged as a cult, but there seemed to be no desire to increase their ranks, even just for extra cash. How do they fund all this?
I'm left speechless by them. Speechless and sickened.
Posts: 3120 | From: Yorkshire | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
The part that left me speechless and sickened (as opposed to the part which made me wonder, which I've already posted) was when an eight-year-old boy was hit by a plastic cup full of coke (or some other soft drink) which had been thrown at the picket from a passing car. The boy was really shaken up, and I think physically hurt by the impact (which was strong enough to break the cup and shower the contents all over him).
I think it's just plain abusive to take young children (who clearly don't understand what the signs they are holding say, as Louis showed skillfully) and put them in harm's way like that. There were all sorts of insults, abusive gestures and threats shouted at them while they were picketting and I just don't think it's fair to subject a child to that. It's no wonder they grow up fearing the outside world.
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
It's child abuse, plain and simple. It should be illegal.
Why does society tolerate this sort of thing?
That's the question!
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
kentishmaid
Shipmate
# 4767
|
Posted
That whole 'freedom of religion' thing, I believe. (If you'll pardon the pun).
Unfortunately, our right not to be persecuted is bracketed with their right to be as obnoxious as they are.
While I echo your sentiments, I'd rather not see that happen.
--------------------
"Who'll be the lady, who'll be the lord, when we are ruled by the love of one another?"
Posts: 2063 | From: Huddersfield | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
It's child abuse, plain and simple. It should be illegal.
Why does society tolerate this sort of thing?
That's the question!
Indeed, it is illegal. The guy that threw the cup at the child should be imprisoned.
And those who think it is OK should not be tolerated.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
But when should freedom of religion become freedom to abuse children?
Society tolerates this because religion enjoys special privilege. I was thinking of Dawkins whilst watching that programme- I have to agree he has a point, vis a vis special privilege.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zoey
Broken idealist
# 11152
|
Posted
xpost - this reply is mainly addressed to the post dogwonderer made before replies by sharkshooter and kentishmaid
Well, in recent discussions about both rape and burglary, the general consensus has been that even if a victim puts themself in a vulnerable position they are not responsible for the crime. They bear responsibility for putting themselves in a vulnerable position, but blame for the crime lies with the perpetrator. Sure, the inclusion of young kids in the Phelps' pickets is deplorable. But blame for the fact that the little boy got hurt rests with the person who threw a drink at him.
I think the way the Phelps raise their kids is disgusting, but without evidence of abuse towards the children, it might be extremely difficult to make a case for removing them from the family. All parents bring their children up according to their own beliefs and try, in different ways, to teach their kids about their morality and the world-view they perceive to be best. What the Phelps teach their kids is absolutely horrendous. But how on earth would you legislate fairly to be able to take kids away from families who are indoctrinating them in extreme and hateful beliefs?
[ 02. April 2007, 12:52: Message edited by: mountainsnowtiger ]
--------------------
Pay no mind, I'm doing fine, I'm breathing on my own.
Posts: 3095 | From: the penultimate stop? | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Rogue
Shipmate
# 2275
|
Posted
They appear to fund by having loads of lawyers in the family who donate 10% of their income.
Do they need much cash? Picketing costs nothing (except for some signs) unless they travel far. They maintain an Internet presence and make loads of films for that. Such kit is not massively expensive and lasts a while. I suspect that some donations were made to acquire the church at the start but the rest of the compound is made up of individuals' private houses with the garden fences removed.
--------------------
If everyone starts thinking outside the box does outside the box come back inside?
Posts: 2507 | From: Toton | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Good point, and well made, MST.
Tricky, isn't it?
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yo-Yo
Shipmate
# 2541
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
But when should freedom of religion become freedom to abuse children?
Society tolerates this because religion enjoys special privilege. I was thinking of Dawkins whilst watching that programme- I have to agree he has a point, vis a vis special privilege.
I'm with Sharkshooter on this one. As horrific as their picketing and message is in a democratic and free society there can be no justification for the violence directed at them. From their world view it reinforces their self-righteousness too. In that mindset persecution equals affirmation.
From what I've read about Phelps he seems to hold to an extreme form of Calvinism and pre-election which means that, to them, there's no point in preaching redemption as it's already been determined and everything that happens is like a performance from a divinely written script. The "We're the righteous few. Woo hoo!" celebrations make sense when you view it through that lense. They believe that God chose them and hates everyone else, the picketing is them fulfilling a duty to spread God's "truth". You could see that in the comment Phelps made about the Iraq War - God putting a lying tongue in Bush's advisers and Him leading the US into the war as judgement. It's all been set up for us to play out.
As much as I want to be angry at them it just makes me feel extremely sad that they've missed the point so wildly and with such fervour.
--------------------
"The purpose of life... is to love whoever is around to be loved." - Kurt Vonnegut jnr
Posts: 371 | From: XS | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
But when should freedom of religion become freedom to abuse children?
I have no idea what they get up to in private but what we were shown on the TV was not abuse of the children. The only person who attacked or insulted a child was the man who threw whatever it was out of the car.
quote:
Society tolerates this because religion enjoys special privilege.
Tolerates what? Taking children to a demonstration? Millions of people take their kids to political events which are as likely to see violences as these people seem to be. Should they all be banned? Or only ones that you disapprove of?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
kentishmaid
Shipmate
# 4767
|
Posted
Ah, I did wonder if there was some double pre-destination stuff going on. Looks like there's some remnants of what I learnt at Uni still in my brain, which is something of a relief.
--------------------
"Who'll be the lady, who'll be the lord, when we are ruled by the love of one another?"
Posts: 2063 | From: Huddersfield | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yo-Yo:
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
But when should freedom of religion become freedom to abuse children?
Society tolerates this because religion enjoys special privilege. I was thinking of Dawkins whilst watching that programme- I have to agree he has a point, vis a vis special privilege.
I'm with Sharkshooter on this one. As horrific as their picketing and message is in a democratic and free society there can be no justification for the violence directed at them.
I agree with this too. Violence is not appropriate, and that viscious bastard who threw the drink at the little boy should be punished according with the law.
But it strikes me that the (arguable) child abuse is tolerated for the sake of religious freedom. And that just sucks.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
But when should freedom of religion become freedom to abuse children?
I have no idea what they get up to in private but what we were shown on the TV was not abuse of the children. The only person who attacked or insulted a child was the man who threw whatever it was out of the car.
quote:
Society tolerates this because religion enjoys special privilege.
Tolerates what? Taking children to a demonstration? Millions of people take their kids to political events which are as likely to see violences as these people seem to be. Should they all be banned? Or only ones that you disapprove of?
Well, I happen to think it is abuse of innocent children to involve them with such despicable fundamentalist bigotry- especially if it exposes them to third-party harm.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
Do they need much cash? Picketing costs nothing (except for some signs) unless they travel far.
On the program they flew to Chicago to picket a funeral. Louis asked them if they do this often and how much it costs. Shirley said it was in the region of $200,000/year.
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
Well, I happen to think it is abuse of innocent children to involve them with such despicable fundamentalist bigotry- especially if it exposes them to third-party harm.
I happen to think it is abuse of innocent children (or not-so-innocent adults) to fail to teach them about hell - because it condemns them to everlasting harm.
However, the law in most countries does not agree with either point of view.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Despite my atheist bigotry, I feel it should be possible to educate children about hell without abusing them, and it is beholden upon civilised society to protect children from harm when their parents do not.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zoey
Broken idealist
# 11152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
Well, I happen to think it is abuse of innocent children to involve them with such despicable fundamentalist bigotry
It may well be, but if so, it is not an abuse which is open to legitimate state intervention. For a child to be removed from their family, the child themself must be on the receiving end of severely harmful activity, usually physical or sexual abuse, or severe neglect of their physical needs. Plenty of nice, respectable-seeming parents do severe psychological damage to their children. How many kids grow up with over-critical parents telling them that they're not good enough etc? Yet the state does not and should not test all parents to try to gauge if their general attitudes and their parenting methods will cause psychological harm to their kids. As others have suggested, unless you can find stronger evidence of indisputable abuse against the Phelps kids, then being able to take those kids away from the family would involve drawing a dangerous line in the sand - I find these beliefs so horrendous that kids shouldn't be indoctrinated in them, most other parents don't have beliefs which appal me so much, so they can keep raising their children in whatever manner they wish to do so.
--------------------
Pay no mind, I'm doing fine, I'm breathing on my own.
Posts: 3095 | From: the penultimate stop? | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mountainsnowtiger:
Plenty of nice, respectable-seeming parents do severe psychological damage to their children.
Yes- but plenty of wrongs do not make a single right.
I understand what you're saying, of course. Clearly, this is a tricky business, like I said. There is no easy answer to the Phelps question. But I do think it's a good example for us to think about- especially in view of the socio-political privilege of religion in general, and the toleration of the less desirable aspects of its practice in society.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
chukovsky
Ship's toddler
# 116
|
Posted
The child abuse I'm referring to is not taking the children to the picket or teaching them to hate, but something more straightforward. There is a rather long description here.
--------------------
This space left intentionally blank. Do not write on both sides of the paper at once.
Posts: 6842 | From: somewhere else | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zoey
Broken idealist
# 11152
|
Posted
chukovsky - I understand there may be allegations of more obvious abuse (such as physical abuse) towards children in the Phelps family. I obviously hope that the authorities follow up such allegations in the correct manner and take any action as appropriate. I think dogwonderer and I are now engaged in a separate debate about parents abusing their familial position by instilling hateful ideas into their children.
dogwonderer - I'm not convinced that this case does demonstrate a privileging of religion. Take a hypothetical case. A British couple are active members of the BNP and vehement racists. They have no particular religious inclinations. They care for their children's physical needs well and the children seem to be perfectly happy. I suspect that it would be near-impossible to have the children removed purely on the grounds that the parents were racist BNP members. The state is not and should not be in the habit of removing children from families, just because the families are teaching the kids extremely unpleasant beliefs. I don't like the fact that kids can be taught by their parents to engage in spiteful, vicious hatred. However, I don't think the state can legitimately intervene and I'm unconvinced that these facts say anything particularly significant about the place of religion in our societies.
--------------------
Pay no mind, I'm doing fine, I'm breathing on my own.
Posts: 3095 | From: the penultimate stop? | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
Well, I happen to think it is abuse of innocent children to involve them with such despicable fundamentalist bigotry - especially if it exposes them to third-party harm.
Especially? So bigotry is OK in a safe environment?
And who gets to decide how despicable bigotry has to be before removing children from it? Will we have an Office of the Bigot-Finder General?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mountainsnowtiger:
... <snip> I don't think the state can legitimately intervene and I'm unconvinced that these facts say anything particularly significant about the place of religion in our societies.
Of course, the state cannot intervene. This is a matter for society not its government. What I am talking about is the way we turn a tolerant eye to the abuse of religious freedom. It's more a question of social culture than legislature. This story may not say much to you about the place of religion in our societies, but it does to me, and presumably to enough others to make it worth showing that programme on prime time television.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by dogwonderer:
[qb]So bigotry is OK in a safe environment?
And who gets to decide how despicable bigotry has to be before removing children from it? Will we have an Office of the Bigot-Finder General?
I suspect you are being a little disingenuous, Ken. Did you see the programme?
Tell me you didn't feel the urge to rescue those small children from that cult.
Thought so.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zoey
Broken idealist
# 11152
|
Posted
Can you explain who outside of the Phelps clan turns a tolerant eye on their abuse of religious freedom? The vast majority of people in America and on these boards appear to despise what the Phelps do and the message they preach. Again, I ask that you consider comparing the Phelps situation with non-religious racist groups. The same kind of rules apply. In both cases, thankfully, most people despise what's going on. In both cases, the way we respond has to be governed by our country's general rules on whether people are allowed freedom to express any opionion they hold, whether people are allowed to teach their children whatever belief system they themselves have etc.
Of course I'd love to save those kids from that group. I don't know about the US, but in the UK there are only one or two ways for a kid to be removed from their parents care against the wishes of those parents - (1) social workers demonstrate that the child is being significantly harmed in a tangible way and they draw upon legislature in order to remove the child from the family, (2) I'm less sure about, but I believe a child themself can ask to be taken into foster care + children are sometimes taken into foster care at their own request - I'm not sure what happens in this kind of case if the parents decide to fight the child being taken into foster care. We've agreed that (1) cannot be applied unless there is evidence of more specific abuse directed at the children (such evidence may or may not exist, as chukovsky has pointed out). I really can't see (2) happening. So how is anybody to 'save' the kids? (I think I agree with the posts made much earlier in this thread which suggested that perhaps the best response is to reach out to the Pehlps kids and offer them friendship from people who aren't involved in WBC - show them that if they want to they can choose a different life to that of their family, etc.)
--------------------
Pay no mind, I'm doing fine, I'm breathing on my own.
Posts: 3095 | From: the penultimate stop? | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Yes, MST. Again, it is tricky.
I'm not sure about offering the Phelps family understanding and love, though I suppose no harm would come of it. It's just that I don't see that making much difference to their rabid fanaticism.
I certainly have no answers to this awful problem, but I do think it would be helpful for society to reflect on the price of our tacit permission of such abuse of religious freedom, and contemplate why this should be so. I know it won't help those little Phelps children, but it may help us evolve culturally in the long run.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Songs of Praise
Shipmate
# 8435
|
Posted
I think the most frightening thing was to be aware of the tremendous inner rage inside that old man and to ponder what possible source it may have.
As for Theroux, I think the one interesting thing that this particular documentary threw up was that the effectiveness of his "ingenue" approach to interviewing people is past its sell-by date. Say what you will, Phelps and his entourage had obviously done a fair bit of research on Theroux and his methods and were adept at parrying his usual MO.
Posts: 94 | From: a distance | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Songs of Praise:
I think the most frightening thing was to be aware of the tremendous inner rage inside that old man and to ponder what possible source it may have.
As for Theroux, I think the one interesting thing that this particular documentary threw up was that the effectiveness of his "ingenue" approach to interviewing people is past its sell-by date. Say what you will, Phelps and his entourage had obviously done a fair bit of research on Theroux and his methods and were adept at parrying his usual MO.
Oh really? I thought his rapport with the young ladies was exactly that- he managed to charm his way into their lives with great guile, I thought. I don't think it worked on Gramps, though.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corpus cani
Ship's Anachronism
# 1663
|
Posted
Interesting.
Evil, fundamentalist bigots in the US are deplored but are exercising their constitutional rights.
Evil, fundamentalist bigots in Iraq are deplored, and unthroned then executed.
Iran next? Afghanistan? Zimbabwe? Wherever....?
Devil's advocate and all that...
Cc
--------------------
Bishop Lord Corpus Cani the Tremulous of Buzzing St Helens.
Posts: 4435 | From: Trumpton | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
I suspect you are being a little disingenuous, Ken. Did you see the programme?
Tell me you didn't feel the urge to rescue those small children from that cult.
Thought so.
Going by only what's in the programme, not, I wouldn't want someone to come and take the kids away.
If the things written in the article Chukovsky linked to are true, than yes I would. That's a whole different category of behaviour.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shadowhund
Shipmate
# 9175
|
Posted
If the charges of child abuse and even murder are accurate, then removing children could be warranted. However, there is the possibility that the Phelps clan is armed to the teeth thereby raising the prospect of another Waco-like siege. It probably would be better just to wait for the nasty old man to die, hoping that with his death, his spell will be broken.
--------------------
"Had the Dean's daughter worn a bra that afternoon, Norman Shotover might never have found out about the Church of England; still less about how to fly"
A.N. Wilson
Posts: 3788 | From: Your Disquieted Conscience | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SearchingForAbsolutes
Shipmate
# 11966
|
Posted
I think that whatever sliver of (questionable) credibility these people have will be extinguished along with ol' Fred when he finally kicks the bucket. Imagine the irony: Shirley holds a sign proclaiming "Don't mourn the dead" while rejoicing about how Fred's in Heaven ( ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif) ). As we all know, Fred is a huge media whore, and most of the reason he does what he does seems to be for attention. His followers (with the exception of Shirley) seem to prefer not to bask in the media attention, and actually believe what they find in Fred's excrements. I think once he dies, and once the initial media sensationalism dies out, the WBC will be less visible (on the mass media stage) than ever.
P.S. Someone may have been fucking with Godhatesfags.com - direct access (by typing the address into the HTML search bar) doesn't seem to be working, although access through a search engine does. Is it just my computer, or has God finally answered prayers?
--------------------
In pursuit of pure, virtuous justice, whatever that means.
"And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins/When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins..." - Rudyard Kipling
Posts: 117 | From: Just North-East of The Centre of the Universe | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
