Thread: HELL: The Official SoF Phelps-watch Thread 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=000782

Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
I thought it might be handy to have a thread for people to rant about the leading light of Westboro Baptist C****h, Fred Phelps, and his actions, rather than the regular new threads that pop up every so often.

Out of curiosity, I was checking up on his hideous godhatesfags.com website and discovered this wonderous quote;
quote:
...Westboro Baptist C****h of Topeka, Kansas, and her picketing ministry...
WTF is a 'picketing ministry'? [I get the definition - but to call it a ministry?!?!?]

Their latest stop along the way on said 'picketing ministry' is this; picketing the funerals of children killed when their school-bus came off the road.

Bastards.

Has the baptist c****h no authority to get rid of the man? If they do, why don't they?

[ 12. January 2011, 14:41: Message edited by: RooK ]
 
Posted by HangarQueen (# 6914) on :
 
I could be wrong, but I suspect his church is not actually affiliated to any Baptist denomination.
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
You're probably right, actually.
 
Posted by Frustrated Farmer (# 10782) on :
 
Since I live in the general area of the folks in question, I think that if you would ask them they would be proud to say that they are not connected with any other Baptist Church in the world, since they are the only true light. [Projectile]

I was informed this week that since the ECUSA parish they enjoy picketing was burned out of their building, they have been following them around to wherever they hold worship services. [Frown]
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
"Picketing ministry"?!? [Projectile]

FF, I wonder....have the police checked out the activities of all Westboro Baptist Church members on the night of the fire? After that other Episcopal Church was burned down because some kid didn't like their take on the Bible, this one doesn't look very random.

(Perhaps the Phelpses are here to force us to remember to turn the other cheek and pray for our enemies. It is hard sometimes.)

Ross
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
I thought it looked a bit suspicious too.
Surely even they couldn't justify that?
Well, actually, if they can picket funerals (especially kids' ones, which somehow seems worse), they probably can. Tiny-minded little bigots.
 
Posted by 206 (# 206) on :
 
quote:
WTF is a 'picketing ministry'?
[Killing me]

You've got to give them points for the notion.

I've just been called by God to create a 'slap the shit out of assholes ministry' based in Topeka.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
No need to worry about Phelps: Galactus is coming.
 
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
I've just been called by God to create a 'slap the shit out of assholes ministry' based in Topeka.

I might donate to that.
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
I think that's a noble calling, 206.
Maybe it's time the Ship had an official 'cause of the year' - think that might be a strong contender...
 
Posted by 206 (# 206) on :
 
The Lord told me to anticipate it being a very cash intensive ministry what with attorney fees, jail bond and private jets to the ministry sites so fork it over sucker, I mean, please find it in your heart to contribute to this important cause.

And The Vision He's given me is coming into clearer focus minute by minute: unmarked 50 dollar bills are His preference, and lots of 'em.

You'll be doing God's work.
 
Posted by altarbird (# 11983) on :
 
My God is more cash poor than your God. God's telling me non-sequential hundred pound notes. (Have to cover all of expenses listed by 206, plus trans-Atlantic flights, visas, and VAT.)

Your reward in heaven shall be great.
 
Posted by 206 (# 206) on :
 
quote:
God's telling me non-sequential hundred pound notes. (Have to cover all of expenses listed by 206, plus trans-Atlantic flights, visas, and VAT.)
Obviously you're being misled by a false god or you wouldn't forget my franchise fees for the concept. I mean, God's concept. I'm merely His humble servant.

And I'm trying to come up with a slogan: how about

'Slapping Assholes To God's Glory - Please Send Cash'?

But I was never good at details: I'm more of the 'visionary' type which is why I'm working to find minions, er, 'ministry partners'.
 
Posted by altarbird (# 11983) on :
 
Mea culpa. I was planning on paying the fees with a bit of arbitrage on the foreign currency exchange rates.

With enough success, we can pay others to do the slapping for us. "Wasn't me, guv." We could call it "Happy Slapping". Wait, there's already something called that. Other ideas?

Your minion in ministry,

Altarbird
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
quote:
WTF is a 'picketing ministry'?
[Killing me]

You've got to give them points for the notion.

I've just been called by God to create a 'slap the shit out of assholes ministry' based in Topeka.

Can we picket pickets?
 
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by HangarQueen:
I could be wrong, but I suspect his church is not actually affiliated to any Baptist denomination.

I'm pretty sure that's right, and of course there's no such thing as "the Baptist Church," since even within Baptist denominations every congregation is self-governing. Does anyone on this board know, just out of curiosity, how much authority there is within various Baptist denoms to discipline wayward congregations?
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
I've just been called by God to create a 'slap the shit out of assholes ministry' based in Topeka.

I might donate to that.
Well I have had a semi serious discussion with a member of Cathedral staff about the ministry of the boot he was exercising at the time. We were exempt from administrations having made the journey to the cathedral to attend evensong.

Jengie
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
I wonder if Phelps would regard Jack Chick as a heretic and vice versa. Maybe they could be installed in a room together to tear strips off each other, rather than the world at large.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
I know that American Baptist churches can throw each other out of the region and that if a church does not reaffilliate legally with another region (can be hard) then the church may have to give up the denominational property (building etcetera.) Attended an American Baptist church, (until I moved) who got thrown out of their region for joining The Association of Welcoming & Affirming Baptists. This region was going to ask all its members to sign a statement of doctrine saying they were against homosexuality and if this passed (I don't know about that region since said church is now in a different region) then any church who refused to sign would have been legally leaving the region (and thus would be in shit creek without a paddle.)

However, Southern Baptists are a different boat and I can not speak to their systems.
 
Posted by Paul W. (# 1450) on :
 
quote:
I wonder if Phelps would regard Jack Chick as a heretic and vice versa. Maybe they could be installed in a room together to tear strips off each other, rather than the world at large.
But then we'd be flooded with Chick tracts about nutjob protesters, and Phelps would be picketing comic shops, which would be a pain in the arse on both counts.

Paul W

[ 26. November 2006, 23:36: Message edited by: Paul W. ]
 
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :
 
An Episcopal priest of my acquaintance encountered Phelps and his brood at General Convention a few years ago, picketing across the street. Father Who-shall-remain-nameless walked up to Fred and offered him a caramel on the theory that if Fred was chewing on a caramel he couldn't talk!
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
Did he take the caramel? I can't imagine he would accept something from one of those f*g-loving 'Piscopalians*.

(*of which I'm one)
 
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Did he take the caramel? I can't imagine he would accept something from one of those f*g-loving 'Piscopalians*.

(*of which I'm one)

If I remember the story correctly he did, although I don't know if he ate it. (And me too; I love f*g Newtons)
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
I thought it might be handy to have a thread for people to rant about the leading light of Westboro Baptist Church, Fred Phelps, and his actions, rather than the regular new threads that pop up every so often.

Out of curiosity, I was checking up on his hideous godhatesfags.com website and discovered this wonderous quote ...

Their latest stop along the way on said 'picketing ministry' is this; picketing the funerals of children killed when their school-bus came off the road.

This gave me an idea -- maybe we could designate one person on the Ship to read and summarize what's on Phelps' website so we're not all running up his hit count.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Good suggestion but I fear I must decline; I have high blood pressure as it is. Plus I've just had breakfast and would like to retain it within my body in the usual time-honoured manner.
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
quote:
Originally posted by HangarQueen:
I could be wrong, but I suspect his church is not actually affiliated to any Baptist denomination.

I'm pretty sure that's right, and of course there's no such thing as "the Baptist Church," since even within Baptist denominations every congregation is self-governing. Does anyone on this board know, just out of curiosity, how much authority there is within various Baptist denoms to discipline wayward congregations?
Technically, none at all, I'm afraid. As you've said, each Baptist congo is autonomous and pretty much do and believe what the hell they like without sanction. Most Baptist congregations however do choose to affiliate together in various unions, conventions and associations with other like-minded Baptist congos: SBC, ABC and, over here, BUGB and Grace Baptists, to share clergy and other resources, but these associations are purely voluntary and do not in any way amount to denominations, and the worst that can happen is that a congregation can be disaffiliated from a particular grouping - the convention or association can't stop the congo doing what it's doing. AFAIK, Phucktard Phelps and Co have never been in affiliation with anyone else; after all, who would have them?

[ 27. November 2006, 08:52: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
 
Posted by My Duck (# 11924) on :
 
Has anyone ever picketed Fred?

Not a happy thought, going out deliberately to make contact with the slimeballs, but I was just wondering what would happen.....
 
Posted by altarbird (# 11983) on :
 
What I don't understand is how this guy and his ministry make enough money for all this travel, ballot initiatives, etc. Does anyone know? Did he inheirit a lot of money somewhere?

Although what is really scary is that when his daughter ran for office on a very open "I'm in complete agreement with Phelps" ticket, she got a pretty high percentage of the vote. [Projectile]
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
That kind of thing reminds me of the scenes in Borat with the rodeo crowd and university students [Eek!]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by altarbird:
What I don't understand is how this guy and his ministry make enough money for all this travel, ballot initiatives, etc. Does anyone know? Did he inheirit a lot of money somewhere?

Although what is really scary is that when his daughter ran for office on a very open "I'm in complete agreement with Phelps" ticket, she got a pretty high percentage of the vote. [Projectile]

Your paragraph 2 answers paragraph 1. There are lots of vindictive, judgmental bastards out there. For every bigot that shows up to picket a soldier's funeral there are a hundred who inwardly cheer Phelps and his ilk.
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by My Duck:
Has anyone ever picketed Fred?

Not a happy thought, going out deliberately to make contact with the slimeballs, but I was just wondering what would happen.....

Shipmeet for those in south USA?
[Snigger]

quote:
Originally posted by Paul W.:
quote:
I wonder if Phelps would regard Jack Chick as a heretic and vice versa. Maybe they could be installed in a room together to tear strips off each other, rather than the world at large.
But then we'd be flooded with Chick tracts about nutjob protesters, and Phelps would be picketing comic shops, which would be a pain in the arse on both counts.

bloody funny though - and it'd keep them occupied.
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:

I thought it might be handy to have a thread for people to rant about the leading light of Westboro Baptist Church, Fred Phelps, and his actions, rather than the regular new threads that pop up every so often.

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

This gave me an idea -- maybe we could designate one person on the Ship to read and summarize what's on Phelps' website so we're not all running up his hit count.

That'd be an, er, interesting assignment. Good idea - but can I volunteer NOT to be the Chosen One&trade
 
Posted by ButchCassidy (# 11147) on :
 
I think they're technically Primitive/Particular Baptists; so they claim to be on their website. It seems like what non-homosexual-hating theology they do teach is uber-Calvinist.

Primitve Bapists AFAIK are pretty autonomous though, dont have many links with each other. Also looks like the Primitive Baptist Web Station doesn't list them amongst its members... Could be they're as appalled by Westboro as everyone else.
 
Posted by Orb (# 3256) on :
 
You do realise that Phelps is the heart of American society though, right?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Orb:
You do realise that Phelps is the heart of American society though, right?

No, not the heart but the "mean center" according to Wiki'. It's very probably a fine place and has done nothing to deserve its name.
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Shipmeet for those in south USA? ...

Not so very far south; Kansas licence plates read "Midway USA" in my childhood. We could draw from a wide geographic area and be equally inconvenient for (almost) all.

And I know where there's an excellent microbrewery in nearby Lawrence -- perfect for pre- and post-picketing libations. I'll bet Frustrated Farmer could help us out on that front, though.

Ross
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Does anyone live near enough to Mystery Worship his church?
 
Posted by Izzybee (# 10931) on :
 
Now that would be nervewracking - can you imagine dropping the MW calling card into that particular collection plate?
 
Posted by basso (# 4228) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Did he take the caramel? I can't imagine he would accept something from one of those f*g-loving 'Piscopalians*.

(*of which I'm one)

[tangent]
Years ago on a mailing list now far away, you could request the listserver to send the FAQ for the list. The command was 'get anglican-faq'.

Every now and again somebody would slip and send the request to the list rather than to the server. And it seemed that every time somebody made the mistake, they would also make the second mistake, and ask to 'get anglican-fag'.

This was the source of some hilarity...
[/tangent]
b.
 
Posted by Frustrated Farmer (# 10782) on :
 
If someone would like directions to the church in question, please contact me by PM.
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
How about directions for the church in question? [Snigger]
 
Posted by SearchingForAbsolutes (# 11966) on :
 
An interesting point is when bad things happen (a.k.a. children dying in a bus crash), Phelps & Co. are there in a hurry 'cause "God is punishing the unrighteous", but when bad things happen to the WBC (i.e. bombings, acts of violence toward them) they're considered to be "attacks" from the sinful world.

B'golly gosh, yuh think he might jest be tryin' ta git attention?

Anyway, here's a great video of a faux-news reporter hitting on Fred Phelps Jr. It's definitely worth a view.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KZPsTM-4qgg
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:

Anyway, here's a great video of a faux-news reporter hitting on Fred Phelps Jr. It's definitely worth a view.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KZPsTM-4qgg

[Killing me] [Killing me] [Killing me]
 
Posted by teddybear (# 7842) on :
 
Yes, the Phelps have been picketed in the past and all it did was give them more fodder for their hatred. It also made the group more newsworthy and that is the last thing they needed. Personally, having seen them in action on a daily basis since they began picketing, more attention is the last thing they need. From what I hear, they are also very controlling about who is allowed to join them for worship. You may have to undergo close scrutiny before they will allow you in their services. If anyone wants directions on how to find their church, I would be more than happy to give directions on getting there. As for me, no way on earth you would ever find me darkening their door. PM me for directions.
 
Posted by Campbellite (# 1202) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
If I remember the story correctly he did, although I don't know if he ate it. (And me too; I love f*g Newtons)

Repent sinner! Don't you know that God Hates F*gs? [Razz]
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SearchingForAbsolutes:
Anyway, here's a great video of a faux-news reporter hitting on Fred Phelps Jr. It's definitely worth a view.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KZPsTM-4qgg

That's rather satisfying to watch [Killing me] - particularly when he runs to hide behind his wife. [Killing me]

Maybe if a bunch of people were recruited to hit on Phelps and his wife whenever they're out picketing, they might be put off it a bit. [Snigger]

[ 28. November 2006, 10:24: Message edited by: luvanddaisies ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Campbellite:
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
If I remember the story correctly he did, although I don't know if he ate it. (And me too; I love f*g Newtons)

Repent sinner! Don't you know that God Hates F*gs? [Razz]
No - He loves the smoker, hates the cigarettes!

[ 28. November 2006, 11:25: Message edited by: leo ]
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Campbellite:
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
If I remember the story correctly he did, although I don't know if he ate it. (And me too; I love f*g Newtons)

Repent sinner! Don't you know that God Hates F*gs?
Remember what Jesus did to the f*g tree....
 
Posted by altarbird (# 11983) on :
 
Refresh my memory - split them open and grilled them lightly with a dash of honey and served it up with homemade vanilla bean ice cream?

Because that's what I do, and I do so try to emulate Christ in all my doings.
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
what, you eat the whole tree? [Eek!]
Burn the heretic [Mad]
 
Posted by SearchingForAbsolutes (# 11966) on :
 
LINK

Found another gem! A Norwegian radio station does a little prank on Big Freddy himself. They call him and play a (quite obvious) prerecorded tape of questions, but Fred starts with his preaching and doesn't even notice (even when the audio starts repeating itself and malfunctions!).

[Are you sure that link name was long enough?]

[ 30. November 2006, 03:07: Message edited by: RooK ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Maybe if a bunch of people were recruited to hit on Phelps and his wife whenever they're out picketing, they might be put off it a bit. [Snigger]

It would be funny, but I wouldn't recommend it.

IIRC, Matthew Shephard's murder was triggered by hitting on (?) a straight man in a bar. I'm NOT in any way, shape, or form blaming Matthew. Just saying that the proposed action could be very dangerous.

And I suspect that Fred is mentally ill, deeply closeted, possibly an abuse survivor, or some combination of the three. If someone pushed his buttons by hitting on him...
[Eek!]
 
Posted by JArthurCrank (# 9175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Maybe if a bunch of people were recruited to hit on Phelps and his wife whenever they're out picketing, they might be put off it a bit. [Snigger]

It would be funny, but I wouldn't recommend it.

IIRC, Matthew Shephard's murder was triggered by hitting on (?) a straight man in a bar. I'm NOT in any way, shape, or form blaming Matthew. Just saying that the proposed action could be very dangerous.

And I suspect that Fred is mentally ill, deeply closeted, possibly an abuse survivor, or some combination of the three. If someone pushed his buttons by hitting on him...
[Eek!]

I've often wondered whether Phelps doesn't have a David Koresh-esque cache of weapons. I suppose he's smart enough to just-barely stay on the right side of the law and that if he went over the edge, that would bring his travelling circus to an end.

He would be highly entertaining if it weren't for the funeral picketing.

I do like his church's rendition of "Faith is the Victory" though. One of my favorite Proddy hymns.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
I gotta admit, when I saw Junior laugh,it made my unbridled hatred for the Phelps clan wane a bit.

Maybe we are underestimating the educational power of really good comedy. [Big Grin] In any case, that faux- anchor has been added to my list of heroes.


GK-- it can be done. You get a van ready for the volunteer Romeos, you provide them with Mace, and you gun the engine the minute they dive through the open van door screaming "GO! GO! NOW!"


Heck, I'd volunteer to dress in drag and hit on Phelps himself just to get a closeup of the expression on his face. I know where to apply the knee if he gets out of line.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Maybe if a bunch of people were recruited to hit on Phelps and his wife whenever they're out picketing, they might be put off it a bit. [Snigger]

It would be funny, but I wouldn't recommend it.

IIRC, Matthew Shephard's murder was triggered by hitting on (?) a straight man in a bar. I'm NOT in any way, shape, or form blaming Matthew. Just saying that the proposed action could be very dangerous.

And I suspect that Fred is mentally ill, deeply closeted, possibly an abuse survivor, or some combination of the three. If someone pushed his buttons by hitting on him...
[Eek!]

I'd like to know the evidence that he was 'hitting on' a straight man. Men have got off murder charges on 'homosexual panic' defence.

Are straight men so insecure that they have to murder someone rather tan tell them to go away?
 
Posted by Living in Gin (# 2572) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I know where to apply the knee if he gets out of line.

If anybody is begging for a good kick in the nuts, it's Phelps.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Maybe if a bunch of people were recruited to hit on Phelps and his wife whenever they're out picketing, they might be put off it a bit. [Snigger]

It would be funny, but I wouldn't recommend it.

IIRC, Matthew Shephard's murder was triggered by hitting on (?) a straight man in a bar. I'm NOT in any way, shape, or form blaming Matthew. Just saying that the proposed action could be very dangerous.

And I suspect that Fred is mentally ill, deeply closeted, possibly an abuse survivor, or some combination of the three. If someone pushed his buttons by hitting on him...
[Eek!]

I'd like to know the evidence that he was 'hitting on' a straight man. Men have got off murder charges on 'homosexual panic' defence.

Are straight men so insecure that they have to murder someone rather tan tell them to go away?

As I said, I was doing my best to recall from memory. I've just checked the Wikipedia entry about Matthew. His murderers gave a variety of accounts, including a "gay-panic defense". Their girlfriends, however, testified that the guys had planned it all ahead of time--they went to a gay bar and targeted Matthew.

As to whether some people are so insecure that they'd respond to a same-sex advance with violence, I think some are. I'm not defending reacting that way. Just warning that Fred might react that way.

BTW, the Wikipedia article has an account of Fred's handling of Matthew's death, and the "angel" counter-protesters.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Living in Gin:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I know where to apply the knee if he gets out of line.

If anybody is begging for a good kick in the nuts, it's Phelps.
Thank you, Gin, thank you so much for that.

Now every time I see somebody get kicked in the nuts, I will think of you. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
I think the [Eek!] smilie goes well with that link, Living in Gin.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Leo:

quote:
I'd like to know the evidence that he was 'hitting on' a straight man. Men have got off murder charges on 'homosexual panic' defence.

Are straight men so insecure that they have to murder someone rather tan tell them to go away?

The Guardsman's Defence would hardly be of much use if some straight men weren't so insecure, would it?
 
Posted by Beautiful_Dreamer (# 10880) on :
 
I dont think they really have the authority to get rid of this guy, but I really wish they would because he makes all Christians look bad. I have been on his godhatesfags site, and I felt like taking a shower afterward.
 
Posted by Campbellite (# 1202) on :
 
I've checked out his website, too, BD. I felt that I needed to sterilize my screen and keyboard with bleach afterwards. [Paranoid]
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
That's some sick twisted shit, Living in Gin.


In other news, Phelps gets a mosquito bite by being ordered to pay some court costs in the suit by the father of the Pennsylvania Marine whose funeral the Westboro haters picketed.
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
I really wonder what they think they're going to accomplish with this twisted "picketing ministry". It's unfathomable how they think that insulting grieving people is going to achieve anything positive. What sort of logic???
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
I really wonder what they think they're going to accomplish with this twisted "picketing ministry". It's unfathomable how they think that insulting grieving people is going to achieve anything positive. What sort of logic???

It gets attention, like terrorism and just about as ethical (OK, no bombs, but that is the only respect in which it is no worse). We see plenty of atention seeking on the Ship from time to time.
 
Posted by Badfundie (# 9422) on :
 
There is going to be a funeral here on Saturday at the Evangelical Free church for a young man who died serving our country in Iraq. Phelps plans to be there. A large contingent from my church, a Fundamentalist Baptist church is going to be there to quietly counter-protest by outnumbering and surrounding the Phelps minions (we have been asked to do so in hopes that we can quietly infiltrate and split up the group to render them ineffective). It is beyond me how this idiot could have decided to start protesting military funerals. When someone dies in military service (wether we agree with the war or not) people should honor the sacrifice, not torture his family and friends with stupid hate-spewing while they are in mourning. If someone dies in the belief that they are protecting me or my freedom, I don't care about their sex life. I wish Phelps would protest at the burial at Arlington. There's always the chance that an "accident" could be arranged in the 21-gun salute.
 
Posted by BassoProfundo (# 11008) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SearchingForAbsolutes:

Anyway, here's a great video of a faux-news reporter hitting on Fred Phelps Jr. It's definitely worth a view.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KZPsTM-4qgg

On a tangent: It's from a show in Australia called "The Chaser's war on everything" - you can get more videos from the ABC website:here
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
I really wonder what they think they're going to accomplish with this twisted "picketing ministry". It's unfathomable how they think that insulting grieving people is going to achieve anything positive. What sort of logic???

I think it's essentially boasting.

"We're the only people in the world who are completely right. Nyah, nyah, nyah!"

Moo
 
Posted by Beautiful_Dreamer (# 10880) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:


I'd like to know the evidence that he was 'hitting on' a straight man. Men have got off murder charges on 'homosexual panic' defence.

Are straight men so insecure that they have to murder someone rather tan tell them to go away?

You know, I've wondered that myself. I don't think all of them are, just the ones who have homosexual feelings that they are ashamed of. The more they slag off on homosexuals, the less likely anyone is to guess that they themselves are gay, in their mind. Silly, I know. But then so is the whole 'homosexual panic' defence.

And when I previewed this, it said I was supposed to grovel to Rook, Stoo, or Scot. Who should I grovel to first? [Smile]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beautiful_Dreamer:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:


I'd like to know the evidence that he was 'hitting on' a straight man. Men have got off murder charges on 'homosexual panic' defence.

Are straight men so insecure that they have to murder someone rather tan tell them to go away?

You know, I've wondered that myself. I don't think all of them are, just the ones who have homosexual feelings that they are ashamed of. The more they slag off on homosexuals, the less likely anyone is to guess that they themselves are gay, in their mind. Silly, I know. But then so is the whole 'homosexual panic' defence.


Living where I do, I know plenty of men who are quite capable of simply smiling and saying "Thanks for the compliment, dude, but I'm straight/ not into guys /not interested."

In my experience, the guys that really have a panic attack at the idea of other guys hitting on them are the kind of guys who can't take a simple "no" from a woman, and assume all other men are wired like they are.
 
Posted by Beautiful_Dreamer (# 10880) on :
 
That is true too. My ex was like that, and he was also arrogant enough to think that every woman wanted him. Since to him a homosexual man is like a woman, then any homosexual man must want him too (in his mind). Can you see why he is an ex?? [Smile]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Thank God. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Tangentially, I note that according to his Wiki, Phelps was once a civil rights lawyer, even winning awards from black groups, and is a registered Democrat.

Which makes his current position even more bizarre. Hands up who'd have assumed he was a racist as well, and too far to the right for Democrats or Republicans?

Interestingly, his estranged son (some of his kids are with him, others have a brain) says that Phelps had little in the way of religious beliefs of any kind before starting his little hate club, I mean church. His belief is that Phelps has a pathological need to hate some person or group, and has chosen homosexuals, presumably because he thinks he can recruit religious fervour to assist his campaign.

It's a bizarre kind of redemption-in-reverse.
 
Posted by Campbellite (# 1202) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Phelps has a pathological need to hate

Says it all right there, doesn't it?
 
Posted by ReginaShoe (# 4076) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Tangentially, I note that according to his Wiki, Phelps was once a civil rights lawyer, even winning awards from black groups, and is a registered Democrat.

A slight tangent, but if his now-estranged son is to be believed, he was pretty much a racist all along. Apparently all he ever went for in civil rights cases were settlements - which enrich both Phelps and his clients but do basically nothing to advance the cause. Think of it; if the parties in "Brown vs. Board of Education" had settled out of court, that rather crucial ruling from the Supreme Court might not have happened. And then, again according to what I've read, he was making fun of his clients and calling them ugly names behind their backs the whole time. I hadn't heard anything about the awards, though.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
If you are in the UK, you might want tpo watch BBC2 2100-2200 on Sunday - about the Phelps family.
 
Posted by da_musicman (# 1018) on :
 
I'm looking forward to that program. Good chacne to let my "heathen" freinds know who I'm ranting about.
 
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
Karl, in the states, the nice cuddly, left wing Democrats have a long, interesting history on race. In fact, from about 1861 to 1960 it was the Republicans who championed equal rights. Strom Thurmond was a Democrat for a long time, and he ran as a "States Rights Democrat" in the 48 Presidential election - the Democrats were split evnely between those who thought segregation a good idea, and those who didn't. Nixon won in 68 partly because the Democrats were split again on the issue - the last time, I think, an openly segragationalist policy had an impact. Being registered Democrat doen't make you not-racist. In fact, in certain areas up to the 60s it more or less meant you were segregationally inclined.
 
Posted by SearchingForAbsolutes (# 11966) on :
 
I'm very interested in the Phelps phenomenon, and since I'm in university, I have ample time to think too much about complex issues. I'm wondering (aloud) if Phelps' actions could be considered terrorism (on a theoretical scale, not a U.S. legal one). His actions are used to instill fear in others in order to push a revolutionary political and social cause. His actions are not physically violent, but according to many leading terrorism experts, they don't have to be. The threat of harm, be it emotional, social, or violent, is what Phelps & Co. use to gain attention to their homophobic message. The Amish massacre in Pennsylvania is proof of that; when alternate, wider-scoping methods of spreading the message made themselves available (through the threat of emotional harm on the community), the WBC took to the radio waves provided by a sympathetic/attention-grabbing Mike Gallagher* (the adjective depends, of course, on interpretation of his bargain with the church). The WBC endorse violent conduct; as mentioned earlier, Phelps celebrated Matthew Shepard's murder, as well as the deaths of American troops. The group sees itself as the only moral arrow on the planet (let's play a game: who can name other terrorist groups who believe the same thing?), and through attention-grabbing acts they attempt to further their cause.

I realize their actions are protected under the Constitution, but I still think the theoretical comparisons to terrorist organizations are frighteningly similar. The FARC uses threats of violence in order to extract taxes from drug cartels in Columbia. Is the WBC's threat of protest, assuming the original motive for protest was standard attention-whoring, and subsequent bargain comparable with groups like FARC who gain through threats? FARC has proven themselves true to their threats in the past, as has the WBC.

Of course, I'm just thinking in syntax, but some intelligent, passionate responses, found so abundantly on the SoF [Biased] , would be great.

*Did anyone listen to the broadcast? As disgusting as I think their beliefs are, it would have been interesting. Er... On second thought, it probably would have been the same speech Fred must have tattooed on the insides of their eyelids.
 
Posted by boppysbud (# 4588) on :
 
I think that Phred Phelps, and Akinola, and the arch-preacher of Sydney would all make great friends.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
WBC, their wacko ideas and Phelps got a mention this morning on BBC Radio 2. The "Religious News" round up on Sarah Kennedy's "Dawn Patrol" mentioned it, probably to point people to Sunday's program.

Although that program is on April 1st, I'm afraid it's true. [Frown]
 
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :
 
quote:
The last documentary filmmaker to enter their world was so enamoured by the family that he joined them.
How the hell did that happen? [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
quote:
The last documentary filmmaker to enter their world was so enamoured by the family that he joined them.
How the hell did that happen? [Ultra confused]
Leni Riefenstahl?
 
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
quote:
The last documentary filmmaker to enter their world was so enamoured by the family that he joined them.
How the hell did that happen? [Ultra confused]
Well according to this interview Theroux found them
quote:
intelligent, high achieving, have good jobs, and they're kind, for the most part, when they're not on pickets.
Also
quote:
In some ways they're a model family. ... They spend all their recreational time together and they all look out for each other. ...It's important to recognise the good qualities of the family as it helps explain why so many of them have stayed in it and embraced the hateful stuff.

 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
quote:
The last documentary filmmaker to enter their world was so enamoured by the family that he joined them.
How the hell did that happen? [Ultra confused]
Well according to this interview Theroux found them
quote:
intelligent, high achieving, have good jobs, and they're kind, for the most part, when they're not on pickets.
Also
quote:
In some ways they're a model family. ... They spend all their recreational time together and they all look out for each other. ...It's important to recognise the good qualities of the family as it helps explain why so many of them have stayed in it and embraced the hateful stuff.

Lots of families, and "families" too for that matter, have looked out for themselves. It doesn't stop them being mad as a bag of rats either.
 
Posted by 206 (# 206) on :
 
quote:
Theroux found them 'intelligent, high achieving, have good jobs, and they're kind, for the most part, when they're not on pickets.'
It's easy to underestimate these people.

They're a potent combination of zealous competent lawyers and inerrancy run amok.
 
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Lots of families, and "families" too for that matter, have looked out for themselves. It doesn't stop them being mad as a bag of rats either.

True but not the point. The question is "why would someone join the Phelpses?", Theroux's partial answer "because despite whatever else they do, they have an attractive family life".
 
Posted by lady in red (# 10688) on :
 
Wow that's depressing. Because I usually really like Louis Theroux. The idea that the Phelpses are a model family is crap though, if you do a bit of research. The children who have left (Theroux says they've 'fallen away') say that their father is an abusive monster who left at least one of his children with permanent physical damage and PTSD. Now his children have grown up, he's turned his hate elsewhere.

None of which Theroux was apparently allowed to see...

[ 30. March 2007, 12:52: Message edited by: lady in red ]
 
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :
 
I know that a couple of Phelps' kids are now estranged from him, and have said that the family is horrendously abusive and that Phelps is a power freak. Apparently the others stay where they are because they've been raised all their lives with the belief that their little family church is God's elect, and that everyone else is going to hell (and therefore if they leave the family they'll go to hell too).

I don't know if everything they've said is true, but I imagine that as a family they're more than capable of putting on an act when the documentary-maker comes to visit. (Not unlike the families who are beautifully behaved when social services are watching them, and abusive the rest of the time.)
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If you are in the UK, you might want to watch BBC2 2100-2200 on Sunday - about the Phelps family.

I'll be away (playing at Word Alive in Costa-del-Skegness) then, but I was wondering whether to ask my flatmate to Sky+ it for me. Part of me would like to see it to see what on earth the man comes across as, and part of me just thinks [Disappointed] .
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
quote:
Phelps-watch
Why would I want to watch Phelps? [Confused]

Okay, except to protect our backs....
 
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I don't know if everything they've said is true, but I imagine that as a family they're more than capable of putting on an act when the documentary-maker comes to visit.

No doubt that's possible, probable even. What intrigues me though is the apparent need to paint them as only bad. Isn't it possible that there's some good along with the bad?
 
Posted by Frustrated Farmer (# 10782) on :
 
If this is the program that I am thinking of, it was shown here in the area at the local public library. None of the local broadcast outlets wanted to have a part of it.

Our state legislature is still working on somesort of law to restrict their activities at funerals.
 
Posted by KenWritez (# 3238) on :
 
BBC article on Theroux's documentary

Theroux joining the Phelps? No mention of it in the article. Unless offering a different perspective on Phelps equates to "joining" la famiglia. Unless by offering a perspective on the Phelps family that paints them as seemingly normal apart from their picketing, that equates to surrender to them.

As a writer I've learned no one is all good or all bad. As big a hateball as Phelps is, he has some good qualities, as does his family. (Value for "some" is only >=1.) There were days Mother Teresa wanted to give the finger to a really annoying visiting Westerner.

Intolerance wears lots of masks, it's prevalent among even supposedly "open" and "liberal" people who can't or won't tolerate opposition to any of their agendas. Intolerance isn't limited to conservatives.
 
Posted by Wilfried (# 12277) on :
 
At the Topeka Capital-Journal you can find much more than you probably care to about Phelps and his clan.

Perhaps it is unchristian to call someone irredeemable, but I try as I might I find little enough to redeem. Lord have mercy. And given the long and well documented record of Phelp's activities, thorough condemnation of him and his behavior is hardly "liberal intolerance." To characterize it as such is itself knee-jerk bias of a different kind. Heck, even Jerry Falwell condemns him.
 
Posted by Mr. Spouse (# 3353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
Theroux joining the Phelps? No mention of it in the article. Unless offering a different perspective on Phelps equates to "joining" la famiglia. Unless by offering a perspective on the Phelps family that paints them as seemingly normal apart from their picketing, that equates to surrender to them.

I don't know if you've seen any of Louis Theroux's documentaries, but his style is to appear naive and neutral to the subject in an effort to get them to expose their prejudices and idosyncracies all by themselves. And he is very good at it, rarely giving himself away by expressing opinions.

Theroux looks for the weird & wonderful. He tends to choose either people with extreme views - the scariest interview I recall was with the South African AWB leader Eugune Terreblanche - or celebrities (Jimmy Savile, Paul Daniels, Michael Jackson's father - because they wouldn't let him MJ himself). He definitely likes the weirder aspects of US life: classics on the California porn industry, swingers or Montana anarchists come readily to mind.

You've probably guessed by now that I like his style. And definitely will be watching him on Sunday. And cringing most of the way through, no doubt.
 
Posted by KenWritez (# 3238) on :
 
Excellent interviewing advice I've ever heard is, "If you hate your subject, quote them to death. If you love your subject, quote them to death." If Theroux knows what he's doing, he'll step out of the way and let Phelps & Co. hang themselves on their own tongues.
 
Posted by altarbird (# 11983) on :
 
Let me state unequivocably: I can't stand what Phelps and his family do or stand for.

But part of the point of this documentary, it seems, and the danger where people sorely underestimate Phelps or anyone like him is to so completely demonise him that he must be some fire breathing monster 24/7. If only it were that simple. This is Theroux's point about the model family. If it were any other family that spent all this time together, prayed together, were God fearing, held down full time jobs and provided for themselves well, they'd be held up as great examples of parenting and family ties. And by that measure, they are a model family. The one aberrant aspect of them is the extremism of the views they hold and the extent to which they go to demonstrate them. Granted, those views are SO extreme there isn't even a chart to plot them on, but I would say it is the rest of that model family aspect that makes them so dangerous.

It is the same with a lot of dangerous things. When you can turn around to all that criticism and say "Look, we're not the fire breathing monsters people say." it makes people look again. And when they people looking closer see the familial support, and structure and that people were wrong about that aspect (so far as this person has seen), then the gap is opened up to "what else is the public wrong about". That's probably where the previous journo wound up joining them, and that's what the real real danger of the Phelps clan is. They hold very nasty views, and they upset a lot of people with them but so long as people fail to recognize that there are normal aspects to them they'll be even more dangerous than they should be.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
I'm watching the shite (the Theroux doc) now and my blood pressure is rising by the minute. The silver lining is that the younger generation seem to be turning against marriage which means hopefully they won't spawn again.
 
Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :
 
Bloody Hell!

How did he brainwash so many people? Are they not able to think for themselves?

Billy Graham is going to hell?

Jews are fag lovers?

[Eek!] [Frown] [Ultra confused] [Paranoid] [Mad]
 
Posted by kentishmaid (# 4767) on :
 
It's enough to make you feel sick. I feel so sorry for all those little kids they've co-opted into it, too. They clearly don't understand what's on the banners and they're getting hurt as a result of it.

The whole thing's disgusting. I don't know how these people sleep at night.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Phelps comes across as an arrogant rude old prick. (Quelle surprise!)
 
Posted by kentishmaid (# 4767) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :
 
Phelps actually makes Paisley look like a liberal, which is some achievement [Eek!]

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...)
 
Posted by chukovsky (# 116) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :
 
What an arrogant, evil old sack of shit. [Mad]

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? [Mad]
.
 
Posted by Stumbling Pilgrim (# 7637) on :
 
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] for the children. (Yes, I know it's Hell, but with an upbringing like that those kids need all the [Votive] they can get.)
 
Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
Jews are fag lovers?

And more - they killed Jesus, after all. [Roll Eyes]

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]

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]
 
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :
 
Phelps is definitely one of the better arguments against universalism...
 
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :
 
No actually hold that thought....just picture the look on his face when he spots George Michael in universalist heaven.
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
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).
 
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by davelarge (# 186) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Amethyst (# 11068) on :
 
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??
 
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by davelarge (# 186) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Malin (# 11769) on :
 
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?!
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
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...
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Earwig (# 12057) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by davelarge (# 186) on :
 
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.

[Mad]
 
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on :
 
It's child abuse, plain and simple. It should be illegal.

Why does society tolerate this sort of thing?

That's the question!
 
Posted by kentishmaid (# 4767) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mountainsnowtiger (# 11152) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on :
 
Good point, and well made, MST.

Tricky, isn't it?
 
Posted by Yo-Yo (# 2541) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by kentishmaid (# 4767) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mountainsnowtiger (# 11152) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by chukovsky (# 116) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mountainsnowtiger (# 11152) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mountainsnowtiger (# 11152) on :
 
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.)
 
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Songs of Praise (# 8435) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Corpus cani (# 1663) on :
 
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
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by JArthurCrank (# 9175) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by SearchingForAbsolutes (# 11966) on :
 
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] ). 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?
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
I haven't tried it (I hate to add to his click count), but I know the website has been hacked a number of times. Once it redirected to something like godlovesfags.com [Smile]
 
Posted by KenWritez (# 3238) on :
 
dogwonderer, is freedom of speech a right you're willing to support even if parents use it to teach their children values you hate?

As you've said, it's a tricky subject, and a few posters have wondered where the line is between persecuting parents for abuse vs. persecuting them for values you despise personally.

How would you answer vegans who believe feeding meat to children is abuse? How would you answer atheists who see religious teaching by parents as brain-washing and therefore abuse? Who decides what's abuse vs. what's a parent's right to teach his children?

If we continue down that road, how long until children are removed "for their own protection" from parents who teach them facts and values contrary to whatever is current fashion at the time? Political correctness run amok. (I recommend Ray Bradbudry's short story "Usher II" in his book, The Martian Chronicles.)
 
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :
 
I was struck by this conversation between Louis Theroux and a female WBC member:

LT: What if you don't believe in the Bible?

FWBCM: <large grin on face> Then you're going to hell <giggles>.

It's the attitude, saying condemning words as if they are a joke - that is what appalled me, more than the actual things they did or said.
 
Posted by kentishmaid (# 4767) on :
 
I wondered if that was out of embarrassment, perhaps? I know they picket funerals with exactly that message, but perhaps it's slightly different saying it directly to someone's face in front of the cameras. Perhaps she was vaguely aware of how awful it sounded.

Or maybe she is just heartless, I don't know. I'd love to believe it was the former and it's just Fred's hold on them all that convinces them to continue, though.
 
Posted by chive (# 208) on :
 
One of the oddest things I found about watching the programme (which I fully expected to make me angry but it didn't, it just saddened me) was when the children were picking up the leaves before going to church. I had a momentary thought from my own church upbringing which said, 'These people can't be real Christians, they're picking up leaves on the Sabbath.'

It showed me the extent to which cultural conditioning is an enormously difficult thing to break away from.
 
Posted by Paul W. (# 1450) on :
 
I only just watched this, couldn't find a download of it earlier (I'm still a BBC licence payer, so it seems fair that I can do that if I've paid for it already).

I've read a fair bit about the church in the past, but it was something else seeing them like that. Quite scary really, their beliefs seem to have passed down the generations pretty well. I'd be suprised if it all fell apart after Fred dies, it looks like the younger ones are more than capable and willing of carrying it on. But we can live in hope.

I'm actually amazed that no-one's done anything worse than throw drinks at them by now. Pissing off a bunch of grieving trained killers like that would normally be a sure way of winning yourself a Darwin Award.

Paul W
 
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on :
 
Dear KenWritez,

I italicise your quotes:

dogwonderer, is freedom of speech a right you're willing to support even if parents use it to teach their children values you hate?

Yes. I believe very strongly in freedom of speech, and support it (albeit less than ‘willingly’) even if parents use it to teach their children values I disagree with or despise (‘hate’ is too emotive a word here). However, I do not support freedom of speech when it is used/misused/abused in such a way as to cause harm- especially to innocents like small children.

How would you answer vegans who believe feeding meat to children is abuse?

I’d say it is only an abuse of our children to enforce such a lifestyle choice upon them if it causes them harm. AFAIK, ‘good’ veganism is harmless, so I would not presume to judge such parents.

How would you answer atheists who see religious teaching by parents as brain-washing and therefore abuse?

I have made my thoughts on this very clear in a previous thread in Purg. I would agree with the atheist that, by the same criteria as with veganism, it is abuse if it causes harm to the child. Not if it doesn’t.

Who decides what's abuse vs. what's a parent's right to teach his children?

A massive question, with no easy answer. In extremis, society decides what’s abuse (whatever society is), not the parents, however counter-intuitive this may seem.

If we continue down that road, how long until children are removed "for their own protection" from parents who teach them facts and values contrary to whatever is current fashion at the time? Political correctness run amok. (I recommend Ray
Bradbudry's short story "Usher II" in his book, The Martian Chronicles.)


Thanks for the book recommendation- I will look it up, since this subject fascinates me.

(Takes a deep breath). I have faith in society, despite its culture. Many people don’t, but I am an optimist by nature, and I feel that humans have a certain goodness about them which underwrites my faith in society. Hence, I do not believe that there is a real risk today (or in future) of children being removed from their parents who bring them up in an ‘unfashionable’ way.

The human ‘goodness’ I refer to is largely what qualifies us to make value judgements about when parents are abusing their children, even when this abuse is unintentional. Deliberate abuse, of course, is another matter. You don’t need goodness to appreciate that- just common sense.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Balaam:
I was struck by this conversation between Louis Theroux and a female WBC member:

LT: What if you don't believe in the Bible?

FWBCM: <large grin on face> Then you're going to hell <giggles>.

It's the attitude, saying condemning words as if they are a joke - that is what appalled me, more than the actual things they did or said.

That was defensive giggling. She's there with three blokes (presenter, cameraman, soundman) getting these (to her) mildly suggestive questions which she perhaps can't honestly answer.
 
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Balaam:
I was struck by this conversation between Louis Theroux and a female WBC member:

LT: What if you don't believe in the Bible?

FWBCM: <large grin on face> Then you're going to hell <giggles>.

It's the attitude, saying condemning words as if they are a joke - that is what appalled me, more than the actual things they did or said.

That was the moment I found most disturbing. This perverted distortion of Christianity really makes me angry, though mixed with a kind of pity, especially for the younger generation caught up in it all.

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
That was defensive giggling. She's there with three blokes (presenter, cameraman, soundman) getting these (to her) mildly suggestive questions which she perhaps can't honestly answer.

That's what I thought, but when Louis asked her later about why she laughed about it, she said that the thought of God reigning down his righteous judgement on the ungodly made her happy. I find that lack of love and compassion absolutely chilling.
 
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on :
 
She'd had time to think about it by then. The initial reaction of giggling was involuntary, and the body language was unmistakable: she was embarassed.
 
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :
 
Actually, that exchange with the young woman who kept giggling reminded me of my best friend. Her dad used to hit her if she cried, because if she'd been sufficiently "grateful" for the life he was giving her, she would never see any reason to cry. Therefore, she developed this really eerie habit. She'd start laughing when she got upset, and the more upset she became, the more hysterical the laughter was. Miss Phelps REALLY reminded me of that. I wonder if there was a lot of pressure there, particularly since one of their slogans is "Fags die; God laughs". "No, you can't get upset that people are going to hell. You have to be happy about it. BE HAPPY, or you'll join them!"

I can see it. I really can. I think everyone is terrified of Fred. Really, really scared of him. Particularly as he seems to have the power, in their eyes, to decide who's hellbound and who isn't.
 
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :
 
I tend to laugh and make jokes when upset or embarassed, and I think other people do to.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
...if it causes them harm. ..

Who do you think gets to decide what causes harm?
 
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
...if it causes them harm. ..

Who do you think gets to decide what causes harm?
Like I said,
quote:
A massive question, with no easy answer. In extremis, society decides what’s abuse (whatever society is), not the parents, however counter-intuitive this may seem.


 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I think everyone is terrified of Fred. Really, really scared of him.

Both the website that Chukovsky linked to and the accounts I've seen by Louis Theroux put forward the idea that Fred Phelps wasn't actively anti-gay in the 60s and 70s when his children were young but was very very aggressive and angry person. The website describes him as wife-beater and child-beater. The theory seems to be that when he could no longer get away with physical attacks on his children - the older sons left and the older daughters stood up to him - he turned his aggression and hatred outwards.

I've no idea. You can make a TV documentary say more or less anything with editing. As it was presented to us in the film, the older daughters don't seem to be particular cowed by him. If anythign the other way round - he looks physically frail and as if his life was being scheduled and controlled by the family.

Also if it is true (as alleged in that website) that he stopped beating hsi wife and his children after his daughter Margie stood up to him with a carving knife in her hand when he hit her mother, (& thus presumably saved her own chuildren from him) that occured before the God Hates Fags campaigning started. And Margie and Shirley seem to have about twenty kids between them, some of them full-grown. As well as sharing a succesful law practice and a couple of buses.

Who's really in charge in that compound? I guess we can't ever know. Maybe they don't really know themselves. All very odd.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:

<snip>

Who's really in charge in that compound? I guess we can't ever know. Maybe they don't really know themselves. All very odd.

I think that's an important point. Phelps and the entire WBC are pretty much the same as a few unloved and mostly no longer on board shipmates. They are trolls. Trolls IRL though, not of the net (although they take up a fair bit of bandwidth too).

I think there is something to be said for treating them as someone else's irritating small dog. When it shits on the sidewalk, discipline it, and clean up after it, but otherwise ignore the pesky thing.

No reaction is no satisfaction. Do not feed the troll.
 
Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
No reaction is no satisfaction. Do not feed the troll.

I disagree. Whilst this attitude may work on an enclosed space such as a web based community, I do not think it works in the real world. There are two many differences for a start.

If we take the Ship as an example, it is closed to membership. People have to actively choose to read the POVs on this site. With a public demonstration on a street corner, this is not true.

Secondly, free speech does not truly exist on a private, paid for space such as the Ship. By the good will and grace of the people who pay for and run this place, we can say pretty much what we want, but the rules can be changed, undemocratically, or the whole place pulled at any point in time. In real life, this is not true. Phelps can say what he wants to whom he wants and where he wants.

With these two differences in mind, I think it is important to counter views we see as bad. If we do not use the right to free speech but let other people speak out against us then there is no point in having that right at all.

It is important to challenge views like WBC so that there evil doesn't spread any further. We won't change their minds, but we can hopefully stop others from being influenced by them.
 
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on :
 
Excellent! Well said!

quote:
It is important to challenge views like WBC so that there evil doesn't spread any further. We won't change their minds, but we can hopefully stop others from being influenced by them.

Do you suppose it is especially important for other Christians to be seen to make a stand on this? More so than atheists, for example?
 
Posted by chukovsky (# 116) on :
 
I would say yes, in as much as we as Christians have a responsibility to witness to true Christian faith (i.e. not what the WBC is preaching).

However I'm not convinced this includes "shouting louder" (I'm not saying anyone here has advocated that). I really feel that the members of the Phelps family need love, desperately.
 
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :
 
"Shouting louder" is exactly what they want. Phred and the gang thrive on that sort of adversity.

If I hear of their being around, I'll be standing nearby, not engaging them, in my church lady clothes, with a big "God is Love" sign.

People like Phred and Shirley (who seems to be the usual mouthpiece these days) hate it when you don't play to their script [Snigger] .

Charlotte
 
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
...if it causes them harm. ..

Who do you think gets to decide what causes harm?
If you didn't see the documentary in question the children, some as young as six or seven, were brought on protests carrying signs with slogans such as "God hates fags", "Fags die, God laughs" etc. At one point Theroux asked one of the little girls what a 'fag' was (she didn't know). I think 99.99% of the population would agree that this causes harm, wouldn't you? To say it doesn't is to argue for some sort of bizarre moral relativism where individual parents have the 'right' to expose their child to literally anything.
 
Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
Do you suppose it is especially important for other Christians to be seen to make a stand on this? More so than atheists, for example?

I think that with a case like WBC, it has gone beyond the idea of one church speaking out to distance themselves from another church and more about human beings speaking out against inhuman attitudes.
 
Posted by JArthurCrank (# 9175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
Excellent! Well said!

quote:
It is important to challenge views like WBC so that there evil doesn't spread any further. We won't change their minds, but we can hopefully stop others from being influenced by them.

Do you suppose it is especially important for other Christians to be seen to make a stand on this? More so than atheists, for example?
Not in the slightest. It is far more important for Christians to speak truth to power than to expend lots of energy denouncing side-show freaks that have never amounted to much and never will.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
In extremis, society decides what’s abuse (whatever society is), not the parents, however counter-intuitive this may seem.

Indeed, you are wronger than wrong.

It is God who decides.

It is the parents who are entrusted by God to raise their children. Parents answer to God for their actions, not to society.

quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
...I think 99.99% of the population would agree that this causes harm, wouldn't you?...

My opinion, and yours, are irrelevant. This is an issue between the parents and God.
 
Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
In extremis, society decides what’s abuse (whatever society is), not the parents, however counter-intuitive this may seem.

Indeed, you are wronger than wrong.

It is God who decides.

It is the parents who are entrusted by God to raise their children. Parents answer to God for their actions, not to society.

So if I see a parent physically abusing a child, then I shouldn't interfere because God gave that child to that parent?

There is a place for society to say, "That's abuse." Physical abuse, definitely. And I think that there is a place for society to say there can be mental abuse of children.

Whether or not this rises to that level, I don't know. But to say that abuse is between God and the parents and not society is just wrong.

There comes a time for people to say, "Stop. We won't let you hurt that child any longer."
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
...There is a place for society to say, "That's abuse." Physical abuse, definitely. And I think that there is a place for society to say there can be mental abuse of children.

Whether or not this rises to that level, I don't know. But to say that abuse is between God and the parents and not society is just wrong.

There comes a time for people to say, "Stop. We won't let you hurt that child any longer."

As soon as "you" decide for some other parents, you must allow that someone else will decide for you. So, whatever the state decides is OK with you?

You admit you "don't know", and thus, how can you decide, even for your own kids, nonetheless for someone else's?

I am not so willing to allow the state (or anyone else) to pass judgement on me as you are.
 
Posted by Cusanus (# 692) on :
 
I note that sharkshooter does not include PataLeBon's first paragraph in his quote of her post - presumably so that people might be less likely to see that he's posting crap. Didn't work. Why don't you answer her question, instead of posting nonsense about 'the state'?
 
Posted by Paul W. (# 1450) on :
 
Apologies for dragging the topic back to Fred, but WTF? -

quote:
Phelps wrote Saddam Hussein in 1998, opposing U.S.-led sanctions against Iraq and offering to visit Baghdad. Saddam accepted the offer but must have been perplexed when the Phelps clan showed up in the streets of Baghdad with placards denouncing anal sex.
From this article, towards the bottom.

I must have missed this one the first time around. Did they really go to Iraq? That's truly bizarre, I'd have thought they'd be totally opposed to a Muslim state, even a nominal one.

The last quote on this page is supposed to be from the letter he sent. It really does seem that the doctrine of "God hates fags" comes over and above everything else.

Paul W
 
Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
As soon as "you" decide for some other parents, you must allow that someone else will decide for you. So, whatever the state decides is OK with you?

Of course it is. I live in this country. There is a social contract between me as a citizen to obey the law of the land and the government to provide certain services and keep me safe. I am perfectly happy for one of those laws to include abusing children. Personally, I think that people who do abuse children should be removed from society and those children to be kept safe. As I don't see God raining down bolts of lightening on child abusers, and I do see God putting governments and powers on this earth, then I submit to those in charge. I do have the right and the power to change the people in charge though. Its called 'democracy'.
quote:

You admit you "don't know", and thus, how can you decide, even for your own kids, nonetheless for someone else's?

I know I am answering a question directed at someone else here, but why should each and every citizen know each and every thing that should and shouldn't be allowed? This is why law makers employ experts and read up on subjects before stating what should and shouldn't be allowed. I don't know all the ins and outs of child abuse, or all the 'back doors' people will try and get through to get away with things - I am not an expert.

I do know however that I don't abuse my children. I know this because my children are happy and they love me and they come to me when they are in need - we have a good relationship. I cannot say the same for all the children I know, but it is not up to me and I am not expert enough on the subject of parenting to be able to tell other people how to raise their kids. I do not want that power or that ability.
quote:

I am not so willing to allow the state (or anyone else) to pass judgement on me as you are.

Then perhaps you need to seriously consider moving to an area of the world that no one else governs. For laws to work they have to be universal, with no one above the law. I don't care if you agree with a specific law or not, there are many in the UK I don't agree with, but this does not mean that I can freely break those laws at will and claim some sort of moral superiority because I am not allowing someone to pass judgement on me - get real! If everyone lived the way this sentence of your post suggested, there would be nothing but anarchy.

"Yes I know I drove at 90 mph in a 30 zone, but I am not willing for you to pass judgement on me, officer, and will not be accompanying you to the station."

Or even worse "Yes I know I got a little carried away when I punished little Johnny and his arm broke, but this is not abuse because I don't define that as abuse and I don't care what the law says."

What kind of society would allow this attitude to remain within it?
 
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
In extremis, society decides what’s abuse (whatever society is), not the parents, however counter-intuitive this may seem.

Indeed, you are wronger than wrong.

It is God who decides.

It is the parents who are entrusted by God to raise their children. Parents answer to God for their actions, not to society.

quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
...I think 99.99% of the population would agree that this causes harm, wouldn't you?...

My opinion, and yours, are irrelevant. This is an issue between the parents and God.

Please, please in the name of the little baby Jesus tell me you're not serious. God might be the ultimate source of morality, but it isn't as if any individual parent has an infallible hotline to the Almighty that means they'll never get it wrong. You know as well as I do that individuals can do morally reprehensible things because they think the voice in their head they call "God" has told them to. Its generally accepted in western society that while parents have the right to bring up their children according to their own values, that right is circumscribed by the (democratic) law of the land in extreme cases ie sexual, emotional and physical abuse. Obviously there are lots of complex ethical questions around where you draw the line (and no I don't think the Phelps children should be whisked off into care), but are you seriously arguing that individual parents should have the right to do WHATEVER they want to their children, providing they think "God" is ok with it? (I'm thinking here of cases such as parents vetoing life-saving medical aid, or beating their children because they think the OT advocates harsh corporal punishment, or female circumcision etc)

And while you're at it, do you think sending young children out to picket with "God hates fags" signs is a good idea?
 
Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
...There is a place for society to say, "That's abuse." Physical abuse, definitely. And I think that there is a place for society to say there can be mental abuse of children.

Whether or not this rises to that level, I don't know. But to say that abuse is between God and the parents and not society is just wrong.

There comes a time for people to say, "Stop. We won't let you hurt that child any longer."

As soon as "you" decide for some other parents, you must allow that someone else will decide for you. So, whatever the state decides is OK with you?

You admit you "don't know", and thus, how can you decide, even for your own kids, nonetheless for someone else's?

I am not so willing to allow the state (or anyone else) to pass judgement on me as you are.

I do think that if a parent's deliberate actions put a child in a hospital, and I will include for their mental state in that, then that is abuse and the state should act.

Considering that I live in a (well, supposedly) democratic nation, then the state is one that shows the common values of all of us.

What you seem to be saying is if a parent decides that it's ok to kill their child, then that's between them and God. If they decide to lock a child in a closet or put them in a cage "for their own good", then that's between them and God. You seem to see no reason to interfere, whereas I very much see God telling me TO interfere because someone is hurting His children.

Realize, I don't see a reason to interfere if a child is being raised to be a Nazi, a racist, or even to follow Phelps. That is a religious choice and protected by my own society's laws.

If Phelps own actions are causing mental and or physical harm to his children, then the state needs to consider what to do. Apparently, to this point they have decided that it's not a problem how he raises his own children.
 
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :
 
I've got no doubt that when God meets up with these abusive parents, he'll be seriously pissed off and have a lot to say about it. However, by acting in this life, we can stop more shit happening to the kids, and I would say we are accountable to both God and the kids if we don't do something - being Christ's eyes and hands and all that in this day and age. Sure, God can start throwing lightning bolts around if he wants, but I'm not seeing that happen.

I'm just thinking that the kids I work with, many of whom have been abused, would be unbelievably unimpressed by the idea that the abuse is merely between the abusers and God.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
...
Considering that I live in a (well, supposedly) democratic nation, then the state is one that shows the common values of all of us.

...

I am actually saying none of the things you suggest. The issue here is abuse that is not universally considered to be abuse, such as teaching a particular way of life or belief system. If you want to discuss physical harm or the Nazis, let's keep that separate in order to enable discussion.

You are fortunate that you live in a nation with values similar to yours. What would happen if you that changed? Would you be so content in any country in the world?
 
Posted by Big Steve (# 3274) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Balaam:

LT: What if you don't believe in the Bible?

FWBCM: <large grin on face>

I've just caught the show and I was very struck by Louis' conversation with one of Fred's grand-daughters. Her nervous laughter seemed like flirting to me. Did anyone else think that? She was enjoying the attention and covered up her blushes by reverting to "official" church answers.


The poor girls, if they ever get out of the church they will have a lot of hell-raising to get through before they reach equilibrium.
 
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :
 
You could well be right. Wow, those women are going to have some squashed-down sexuality there. God only knows how they cope when they find someone actually attractive.
 
Posted by altarbird (# 11983) on :
 
As a serious question, is the only difference between the Phelps clan and those on here who rail against homosexuality as un-Christian a matter of degree?

And if so, then why aren't these people cracked down on for the damage they do to their kids quite as much?
 
Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
...
Considering that I live in a (well, supposedly) democratic nation, then the state is one that shows the common values of all of us.

...

I am actually saying none of the things you suggest. The issue here is abuse that is not universally considered to be abuse, such as teaching a particular way of life or belief system. If you want to discuss physical harm or the Nazis, let's keep that separate in order to enable discussion.

You are fortunate that you live in a nation with values similar to yours. What would happen if you that changed? Would you be so content in any country in the world?

Interesting that being a Nazi isn't a particular way of life or belief system...

However, the topic of discussion is Phelps, who happens to live in the US of A. Therefore whether or not his children would or would not be taken away is part of the American system and not, say, Saudi Arabia's.

And when one makes sweeping statements, especially in Hell, one should be called on them. You at no point have dealt with the fact that your own viewpoint allows parents to abuse children in ways that an overwhelming majority of people would find abhorrent. If you wanted to separate Phelps's teaching as abuse from a parent who decided to punish a child by beating them almost to death, then you need/needed to say so.

As to whether or not I would be content anywhere else, I don't have a clue and don't even want to speculate. I have found simply by moving between states here that even in the same country things can be quite different from place to place. (Heck things are quite different from where I live and where I work!).

And mindless speculation, without facts, just isn't something I do.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
... You at no point have dealt with the fact that your own viewpoint allows parents to abuse children in ways that an overwhelming majority of people would find abhorrent. If you wanted to separate Phelps's teaching as abuse from a parent who decided to punish a child by beating them almost to death, then you need/needed to say so.

I just did.

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
As to whether or not I would be content anywhere else, I don't have a clue and don't even want to speculate. I have found simply by moving between states here that even in the same country things can be quite different from place to place. (Heck things are quite different from where I live and where I work!).

And mindless speculation, without facts, just isn't something I do.

So, you don't want to speculate, but you want me to.

I guess we are done.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
SS - let me get this clear.

Suppose a parent tied their child to a chair and flogged them with a cat of nine tails such that their skin was removed and their bones exposed as a "punishment", you don't believe the state should intervene?

My God.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
SS - let me get this clear.

Suppose a parent tied their child to a chair and flogged them with a cat of nine tails such that their skin was removed and their bones exposed as a "punishment", you don't believe the state should intervene?

My God.

(Different SS chiming in)

So long as it is done in "Christian love", you can thrash your child. If anyone of another faith or no faith at all does so, why, they are unable to use God's law to justify their action, so they should be subject to secular law.

Back to sharkshooter. I think your outlook is excessively, if not entirely legalistic. All the justification is from scripture and particularly the very letter of the Law. Justifying by observing the letter of the Law is not what Christianity (well, mine anyway) is about. There seems to be no room for the Holy Spirit in your views, let alone those of Phelps.
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
It is the parents who are entrusted by God to raise their children. Parents answer to God for their actions, not to society.

Children are also citizens. Are they not entitled to the benefits and protections of citizenship? Therefore, does the state not have a responsibility to ensure all children enjoy those benefits and protections? In Canada, at least, those rights include not just life, liberty and security of the person, but freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom of association, subject to reasonable limits. sharkshooter, the parenting you are describing sounds just like the divine right of kings. OliviaG
 
Posted by Henry Troup (# 3722) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
And I think that there is a place for society to say there can be mental abuse of children.

What if, for example, I decided to (living in Canada where we drive on the left) teach a child that cars drive on the right? Or that the words "red" and "green" had interchanged meanings from the standard; and that they should cross on the "green" signal?
 
Posted by KenWritez (# 3238) on :
 
Removing children from families which teach unpopular ideas is a bad, bad slippery slope.

That Fred Phelps is any manner of twisted, I agree. That what he teaches is abhorrent and equally twisted, I agree. But he still has, in the US, the right to teach those abhorrent beliefs to his kids, regardless of how unpopular or toxic they may be.

What happens when/if Christianity becomes unpopular and abhorrent? "Mr. and Mrs. Parent, the State Child Welfare Board has determined you to be actively engaged in promoting civil unrest, hostility toward marginalzed groups, and establishing false and harmful belief systems in your children. Therefore, we are hereby removing them from your care pending judicial review of your case."

In essence, anyone arguing the State ought to remove the Phelps kids from their family is arguing the State ought to be the final determiner of what a parent is allowed to teach his or her children, that the State knows better than the parent. The State's law enforcement policy makers are bureaucrats and elected officials; are these really the people you want in charge of your home?
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
To clarify my position only...

The discussion started by dealing specifically with non-physical issues, and that is what I was adressing. Please do not construe my comments beyond that scope.

I hope for your sakes that you continue to live in a regime with values similar to our own, because I can forsee problems if, as KenW said, your governments all of a sudden decided your beliefs were "abusive".

Olivia, freedom of religion also allows me to teach my children my beliefs, as it allows you and everyone else to do so. That freedom must be applied universally or it doesn't exist.

If you want to discuss about rights of children, I will only do so in purgatory.
 
Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
And I think that there is a place for society to say there can be mental abuse of children.

What if, for example, I decided to (living in Canada where we drive on the left) teach a child that cars drive on the right? Or that the words "red" and "green" had interchanged meanings from the standard; and that they should cross on the "green" signal?
I think that you can certainly teach your children that, if it means that much to you.

Heck, you could home school your children and go picket city hall to change the traffic lights every day if you wish with your children.

Of course when your children blame your teaching for causing their wreck, then you will have to deal with what you have taught your children.

What I am calling mental abuse are things such as locking children up in cages so that they will be easier to deal with.

I believe that you can teach your children whatever belief system you wish, even one you make up as you go along. Whether or not the teaching is for good or ill will be in the hands of history.
 
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
And I think that there is a place for society to say there can be mental abuse of children.

What if, for example, I decided to (living in Canada where we drive on the left) teach a child that cars drive on the right? Or that the words "red" and "green" had interchanged meanings from the standard; and that they should cross on the "green" signal?
Since when do cars drive on the left in Canada? I've driven in British Columbia any number of times and always on the right side of the road. Have things changed that much in the four or so years since I've been up there?
 
Posted by John Spears (# 11694) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
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.

Nothing you do condemns them to everlasting harm - its your God that does that.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
It would appear that the law is finally beginning to catch up with Phred and Co
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Huzzah! [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
I hope (in Christian Love™, of course) that this opens the floodgates and the mean old bastard goes bankrupt
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
There's very little chance of that. However bankrupt his theology and doctrine may be the Phelpsians have plenty of cash and I suspect some rich backers who wouldn't be seen dead carrying those banners but have common cause with the Phelpsians.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
A pox on them all, then
 
Posted by PeteCanada (# 10422) on :
 
That'll probably be appealed by WBC tame lawyers. But it did give me a momentary warm feeling.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Most of them are lawyers, aren't they? God help my profession...
 
Posted by PeteCanada (# 10422) on :
 
At least it's not the second oldest profession Matt! Be of good cheer!
 
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
There's very little chance of that. However bankrupt his theology and doctrine may be the Phelpsians have plenty of cash and I suspect some rich backers who wouldn't be seen dead carrying those banners but have common cause with the Phelpsians.

Is that actually true, though? My guess is that the kind of far-right groups which might have sympathy with the extreme homophobia will probably be alienated by the "God hates America" stuff. I can't see an obvious audience for Phelps' views, other than his own family, who believe that their salvation depends on agreeing with him.
 
Posted by teddybear (# 7842) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
It would appear that the law is finally beginning to catch up with Phred and Co

Here's a longer article about the story.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
Unfortunately, it hasn't slowed him down: Group Plans to Picket Va. Tech Funerals [Mad]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
There's very little chance of that. However bankrupt his theology and doctrine may be the Phelpsians have plenty of cash and I suspect some rich backers who wouldn't be seen dead carrying those banners but have common cause with the Phelpsians.

Is that actually true, though? My guess is that the kind of far-right groups which might have sympathy with the extreme homophobia will probably be alienated by the "God hates America" stuff. I can't see an obvious audience for Phelps' views, other than his own family, who believe that their salvation depends on agreeing with him.
I'm sure many of the right-wing homophobes would be put off by Phelps' "God hates America" but only to the extent that they wouldn't be seen waving those placards. Some, possibly many, probably dobelieve that God has visited these plagues upon America for the same reasons that the Phelpsians do and blame politicians, the media and gays for that, not God.

Phelps and his kind crave attention. If they picket Virginia Tech, I think they will get more than they have ever had before.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Unfortunately, it hasn't slowed him down: Group Plans to Picket Va. Tech Funerals [Mad]

Oh. Fuck. [Mad] Words fail me...
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Unfortunately, it hasn't slowed him down: Group Plans to Picket Va. Tech Funerals [Mad]

Figured that was coming. [Roll Eyes] I wonder if he applies "God is pissed off!" theology when something bad happens to him?
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
What a c*nt
 
Posted by Lookin (# 10855) on :
 
words fail.

i was trying to think of something else to put, but words really do fail.
 
Posted by Malin (# 11769) on :
 
They really do seem to have 'rejoice with those who rejoice and mourn with those who mourn' the wrong way round.

Haven't they read the gospel where Jesus tells us people killed by a falling tower were not being punished by God? How do they interpret Job?

At a loss to know what to do beyond turning anger to prayer somehow. And to thank God I didn't get born a Phelps! [Eek!] [Ultra confused] [Help]
 
Posted by GoodCatholicLad (# 9231) on :
 
Has anyone seen this?
this crowd makes hell attractive


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=My8KxRj_Pwo

[ 22. April 2007, 21:11: Message edited by: GoodCatholicLad ]
 
Posted by Filius Luciferi (# 12571) on :
 
206:'I've just been called by God to create a 'slap the shit out of assholes ministry' based in Topeka.'

How did He get your number?
How do you know it wasn't me?
Did He call 'collect' like they do in Church?
I like the Phelpses ... they're a bunch of cretins. Just one question though, when they say that 'God Hates Fags', do they mean it in the Brit or Yank sense? Can't see what God has against 20 Woodbines. [Devil]
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
Welcome, Filius Luciferi -- I never thought of "godhatesfags" as an anti-smoking campaign!
[Two face]
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
I never thought of "godhatesfags" as an anti-smoking campaign!

Jesus hates it when you smoke.
 
Posted by 206 (# 206) on :
 
quote:
How did He get your number?
How do you know it wasn't me?
Did He call 'collect' like they do in Church?

My minions can address your petty little questions.

However, this is an opportune time to mention adequate financial support for the ministry God has laid on our hearts has been less than overwhelming.

Given that Fred and his ilk scare the bejeezus out of us, our official ministry policy is 'Cash first; action later'.

Much cash.
 
Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on :
 
I still havent quite worked out *how* they manage to pratice as lawyers. Would any client really go to someone as screwed up as the phelps? Would the Phelps be able to take a case unjudgementally? It does seem very odd.
 
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
I never thought of "godhatesfags" as an anti-smoking campaign!

Jesus hates it when you smoke.
Oh my gosh I want that SO much.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Personally I'm rather fond of faggots - especially in rich gravy. But according to Phred, they make Baby Jesus cry. I dunno - maybe he's worried about the cholesterol content. It's alright Phred, I don't eat them every day - they're just an occasional treat.
 
Posted by Filius Luciferi (# 12571) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 206:


Given that Fred and his ilk scare the bejeezus out of us, our official ministry policy is 'Cash first; action later'.

Much cash.

Great stuff! I'm glad to see that you maintain your priorities in good order. [Devil]

[Go practice coding in the Styx.]

[ 25. April 2007, 11:35: Message edited by: Sarkycow ]
 
Posted by Filius Luciferi (# 12571) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Jesus hates it when you smoke.

In Hades we have no other option since all you God-botherers decided we should suffer eternal fire and brimstone. It may not exactly be Benson & Hedges ... but WE like it! [Devil]
 
Posted by Filius Luciferi (# 12571) on :
 
[Go practice coding in the Styx.]

[ 25. April 2007, 11:35: Message edited by: Sarkycow ]

In Hades we still use the Enigma machine.
Somewhat slow, but adequate since we added a seventh rotor wheel. We tried hiding messages under wax as did the Lady Gorgo, but it melts as fast as you can apply the damn stuff down here. Hence the hi-tech solution. [Two face]
 
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Filius Luciferi:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Jesus hates it when you smoke.

In Hades we have no other option since all you God-botherers decided we should suffer eternal fire and brimstone.
Oh no we didn't. And
quote:
God-botherers?
What's wrong with that? Maybe she likes being given a bit of attention occasionally.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
I still havent quite worked out *how* they manage to pratice as lawyers. Would any client really go to someone as screwed up as the phelps? Would the Phelps be able to take a case unjudgementally? It does seem very odd.

According to his Wikipedia entry, Fred started out as a fairly successful civil rights lawyer! Truth is indeed stranger than fiction...

[ETA - Also acc to Wiki, Shirley got her law degree from the same place as Daddy and works for the family firm]

[ 25. April 2007, 13:59: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
 
Posted by ReginaShoe (# 4076) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
According to his Wikipedia entry, Fred started out as a fairly successful civil rights lawyer! Truth is indeed stranger than fiction...

Well, there is apparently more to that story than meets the eye. Check out this chapter from a book based largely on testimony from Phelps' estranged sons, Nate and Mark;
Chapter 6: The law of wrath

It's long, so you might want to start about 2/3 of the way down, where his civil rights litigation history is explored. A couple of quotes:

quote:
Lawsuits were filed, but rarely went to trial-and even more rarely reached a decision. Instead, Phelps practiced what he always had: 'take-the-money-and run'....In the multi-million dollar Kansas Power and Light case, Phelps filed a class-action on behalf of 2,000 blacks who had accused the utility of discrimination in their hiring and promotion practices.

Fred settled out of court for the following: *Two black employees received $12,000 each. *$100,000 was paid out to the other plaintiffs. If one counts the original 2,000, that made for 50 bucks each.

and

quote:
During their teenage years, both Mark and Nate worked as law clerks in their father's office. "When a black client was in there," recalls Nate, "my father would play the 'DN' game with us. It stands for 'dumb <you can figure it out>'. We would all try to use the acronym as often as possible in the presence of the person involved."
I also love how, when three of his kids failed to make the cut at Washburn law school, he sued the school on affirmative action grounds, claiming that his kids should be accorded the same privileges as black kids because of his civil rights litigation history. When two of them failed to make the cut again the next year, he turned around and sued the school again, this time for reverse discrimination because the school had admitted less qualified black candidates in 1984.

Oh, and by the way, I don't think that book ever actually got published. There were lawsuits involved... [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Thanks for the clarification; I thought it sounded a bit too much out of character.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
Yeah that does make a lot more sense. Have to say I went back over the life history in wikki, wondering if there was some accident when he banged his head or something. The sermon he preached on the Louis Theroux's program was very perseverative - made me wonder if he had a form of dementia.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
I do wonder if people will picket his funeral.

L.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Ya think?

I think he'd be sadly disappointed if nobody did. The ultimate attention whore.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
Sadly, too true.

L.
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
I do wonder if people will picket his funeral.

I doubt there will be pickets; more likely wild partying, balloons, clowns and street dancing... that is unless he dies in prison and the ashes are buried out behind cellblock "F".
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
Yeah but whatever way people respond, apart from ignoring it, he'd still be gratified to get a reaction. He's like an internet troll who needs his fix of attention to feel important, but he's become such a media 'celebrity' now that it's impossible to get people to ignore him.

To attention whores there is no such thing as negative attention.

L.
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
How timely and apropos!
 
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :
 
It occurred to me when watching the Louis Theroux programme that Fred Phelps could be gay. Yes really! There's some research around to suggest that people who express hate and aggression towards homosexuals are in denial about their own homosexual inclinations. I wish Louis Theroux had been able to put this to Phelps - his reaction would have been wonderful to behold.
 
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :
 
Well, he clearly has a *thing* about homosexuality as the *cause* of all the problems experienced in American society, I doubt, though, whether *confronting* 'Pastor Fred' with such an accusation would have got Louis Theroux (or anyone) any more satisfactory responses than were demonstrated on that programme.

Interviewer: Pastor Fred: are you not, in fact, a repressed gay?

Pastor Fred: The Bible clearly states that homoseckshuls go to Ha-yull to burn fer all eternity.

Interviewer: Oh, OK, then

Unless and until everyone can either ignore or just point and laugh at Fred and his ilk, howe'er disguised, we will have these discussions
 
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :
 
I think Theroux could have pursued the point. The 'burn in hell' response wouldn't have answered the point about Phelps being a repressed gay.

Perhaps some enterprising group could produce car stickers etc with the question. 'Is Fred Phelps Gay?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
I shudder to think what Fred might do if someone started a campaign like that...

[Eek!]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
What the hell could he do? He's been hiding behind the first amendmant forever. How would he backtrack?

I'd prefer something a little more pungent: "Phred Phelps: Textbook Closet Case."
 
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :
 
Phred, the Lion and the Wardrobe? [Biased]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Kelly--

Well, he could step up what he's already doing, he could do it in a more extreme way, he could get violent.

If people do a "Fred's gay!" campaign, he's not apt to stop what he's already doing and he's not apt to move to the Castro district of SF and march proudly in the next Gay Pride parade.

That kind of campaign would help people vent, but it would only make the situation worse.


[Votive]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
He's gonna keep up what he's doing and find excuses to do it no matter what anybody does. If people help each other laugh at his silly ass, it might at least take away some of his power.
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
Maybe an expeditionary force (with night-goggles and stuff) could sneak through his bedroom window, strap a leather mask and ball gag on him, drag him out in the front yard and work him over with truncheons and stun guns while taking pictures. Yeah, that's the ticket.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Or maybe a strapping healthy man can attempt to seduce him. Go ahead, Gort.
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
Gort looked deeply into Phred's eyes over the dry martini. Understanding flickered there as his hand moved to the tinman's knee...
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
Maybe an expeditionary force (with night-goggles and stuff) could sneak through his bedroom window, strap a leather mask and ball gag on him, drag him out in the front yard and work him over with truncheons and stun guns while taking pictures. Yeah, that's the ticket.

oooh me! pick me! pick me! I wanna go!

(what the hell is a ball gag? do I want to know?)
 
Posted by davelarge (# 186) on :
 
I should imagine that Google is your friend. Perhaps best not to do that search at work though [Biased]
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
nah, I'll let my poor innocent mind stay in it's Happy Place and not traumatize it anymore than necessary.

you sickos can just carry on...

( a ball gag? but they don't have little mouths to gag...? what is the point?)
 
Posted by Filius Luciferi (# 12571) on :
 
Comet:'( a ball gag? but they don't have little mouths to gag...? what is the point?)'


Haven't you watched Pulp Fiction?

Maybe somebody goan get mediaeval on yo ass! [Devil]

[ 07. May 2007, 08:40: Message edited by: Filius Luciferi ]
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
no.

life is too short to waste it on stupid looking movies.
 
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :
 
Filius Luciferi, learn to quote.

Comet, a ball gag is a charming piece of S&M paraphenalia, as I'm sure Google has told you by now.

But (to drag the thread kicking and screaming back on topic) I don't think Fred is a closet case, and I'm not sure that claming it would help at all. It might well have the unwanted effect of making people associate homosexuality in positive, instead of negative, correlation with horrifying beliefs and behaviour like his.

T.
 
Posted by The Crab (# 12250) on :
 
Careful about saying Fred is closet gay - he might sue! according to several online sources his intent is to provoke people into doing something he can claim damages for. this is the only one I could find offhand
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2005/08/the_intent_of_f.html
It is speculation, but given the character of the man, seems to me it well might be the real reason and the source of his fundign.
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
Phelps couldn't sue his way out of a wet paper docket.
 
Posted by Beautiful_Dreamer (# 10880) on :
 
I wonder what makes people so hateful like that. I know some pretty hateful people and they are usually either incredibly ignorant, angry, or miserable in and of themselves and thus have a need to make sure no one else around them is happy. Either way, I feel disgust and pity for people like that.

What I really hate is that some non-Christians think he speaks for us.
 
Posted by Filius Luciferi (# 12571) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
Filius Luciferi, learn to quote.

No! [Devil]
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
No sense taxing your learning skills, eh?
 
Posted by Campbellite (# 1202) on :
 
Please note, Gort, that he did, in fact, quote properly. [Devil]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
(slumps over keyboard in fit of hysterical laughter.)

[Overused] Campbellite
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Campbellite:
Please note, Gort, that he did, in fact, quote properly. [Devil]

Yes, obviously. And it was no doubt a difficult accomplishment.
 
Posted by teddybear (# 7842) on :
 
The Phelps are in the local news again. It seems they are being sued for copyright infringement. And here.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
Fred and his gang are picketing the funeral of Jerry Falwell.
[Ultra confused]
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
from the above website:
quote:
It is plain to the servants of God, that America is taking a blood bath in Iraq because America is busily persecuting WBC for preaching the Word of God to this evil nation of perverts.
Fred, Fred, Fred!

it's not all about you, hun! God is not going to slaughter thousands because his old pal Phelps is feeling unloved and ignored!

He's just not that into you, babe.

and another fav:
quote:
And, as Christ warned doomed Jerusalem, even so WBC -- warns doomed America: "O America, America, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee (translate: thou that persecutest WBC), how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate." Matt. 23:37-38.
Now, I'm no biblical scholar, but where in Matthew does he say, "America, America," ?
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
He's just not that into you, babe.


[Killing me] [Overused]
 
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by teddybear:
The Phelps are in the local news again. It seems they are being sued for copyright infringement. And here.

well, they are a family of lawyers!

[Ultra confused] [Paranoid]
 
Posted by Beautiful_Dreamer (# 10880) on :
 
I'm sorry, but picketing funerals shows an incredible amount of tackiness in my book. Sure, maybe Fred didn't like Falwell much, I didn't agree with him on a lot of things either. But he could at least have some respect for the family and friends who mourn him. But apparently that is too much to ask.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Gee. Ol' Fred's got me almost liking Jerry Fallwell. [Paranoid]

Praise Jaysusss! It's a muhr-uh-kle! [Yipee]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Y'know, sometimes in my wierder moments, I wonder if Phelps is the Andy Kaufman of religion. Know what I mean? That he sets up situations in which his ideas seem so repulsive and over-the-top ugly that you can't help but rush away from them screaming. Maybe somewhere in there is a glimmer of humanity crying out, "Learn! Learn from me! And don't be like me! See the horror that I am, and choose wisely!"

And then I think, "Nahhhh."
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
(As Kelly continues on with a Christopher Walkenesque bout of philosophical fixation...)

Or, maybe the Moral Majority paid him of to make Jer look good by comparison.

Or, maybe the Rainbow Coalition paid him off to underline the few gay-friendly comments Jer made.

Or...
 
Posted by Filius Luciferi (# 12571) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
No sense taxing your learning skills, eh?

Why not? NuLab tax every other bloody thing they can think of.
[Mad]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Nobody appreciates my conspiracy theories. Phooey.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
I'm with you, Kelly.

I've already decided that he's being secretly funded by Falwell/Roberts/et al to make them look moderate by comparison.

it's the only logical explanation, isn't it?
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
There's just too many coincedences.

And have you ever seen him and Pat Robertson in the same room?
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
oooOOOOoooooo [Eek!]
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Gee. Ol' Fred's got me almost liking Jerry Fallwell. [Paranoid]

Then this video should really do it.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Gee. Ol' Fred's got me almost liking Jerry Fallwell. [Paranoid]

Then this video should really do it.
"irrefraggable"?

is that Phred? I've never seen him before. or heard him. what a loser.
 
Posted by 206 (# 206) on :
 
quote:
Then this video should really do it.
The maniacal stare reminds me of Ross Perot.

I wonder if you have to work at not blinking or if it comes natural.
 
Posted by davelarge (# 186) on :
 
It does help when you're actually a robot, and so your eyes are only there to help you blend in to a crowd.

Loser. Who the hell does he think he is, judging who has ended up in heaven and who hasn't?
 
Posted by Filius Luciferi (# 12571) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
[QUOTE]

I wonder if you have to work at not blinking or if it comes natural.

Nah ... 4 office staples does the trick for me!
 
Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on :
 
From the sound of this rather bitter and sad sounding rant, the only people who are going to make it into heaven are the Phelps clan!

That's my idea of hell! Imagine arriving there and finding the Phelps gang have got the monopoly on the place!

Not very 'hellish' words, but thank God that mercy and grace triumph over judgement.
 
Posted by Henry Troup (# 3722) on :
 
A Phelps daughter got arrested in a protest in Nebraska for "contributing to the delinquency of a minor". Some inconsistencies in the story, though.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
continuing on that theme, from the "truth is stranger than fiction" department:

Head: Westboro Baptist Church Found in Bed with ACLU!
sub: Hellhosts buy hats, scarves
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
[Eek!]


Iccccceeee skates! Get yer ice skates heeeere!

This might be the time to buy stock in pharmaceutical companies, given all the pain relievers and psych meds the ACLU will need to cope with the Phelps clan. And vice-versa, for that matter.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
[Eek!]


Iccccceeee skates! Get yer ice skates heeeere!

This might be the time to buy stock in pharmaceutical companies, given all the pain relievers and psych meds the ACLU will need to cope with the Phelps clan. And vice-versa, for that matter.

Would that be the ice skate to go with the one in your bag, along with your lunch box and reading matter?

ps, I love the quote from Shirley Phelps-Roper in the Omaha paper about the "Nebraska law being out of date" [Confused]

[ 13. July 2007, 07:31: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Sioni, I'm sure that's meant to be funny, but I'm missing it.
 
Posted by Henry Troup (# 3722) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
...psych meds the ACLU will need to cope with the Phelps clan.

They cut their teeth on the American N*z* Party and others - see Wikipedia
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
the American N*z* Party [/URL]

bunch of self-deluded losers who were even more out of tune with the US people than the American Communists. Or for that matter the Phelpists.
 
Posted by Squirrel (# 3040) on :
 
And the Nebraska ACLU has a link to Lincoln's Gay Pride parade page. Maybe Fred will take time away from protesting at dead Marines' funerals to attend on behalf of those who are giving him free legal support.
 
Posted by Saint Hedrin the Lesser-Known (# 11399) on :
 
this just in?

Goodness! [Mad] [Mad] [Mad]
 
Posted by hamletta (# 11678) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Hedrin the Lesser-Known:
this just in?

Goodness! [Mad] [Mad] [Mad]

Oh, my! The Phelpses aren't so good with the ol' Photoshop, are they? I imagine they'll be hearing from Notre Dame and General Mills soon.
 
Posted by Saint Hedrin the Lesser-Known (# 11399) on :
 
Ah, yes, the trademark infringement/parody thing at the courts.

Sick, isn't it.
 
Posted by JArthurCrank (# 9175) on :
 
[Killing me]

Where's the provisional IRA when you need 'em?

No, I can HARDLY wait for the Fred Phelps to show up at a St. Patrick's Day parade somewhere ranting about "Fag Paddy" and "Fag Ireland." That may very well be the last we will hear of the Phelps clan.
 
Posted by Saint Hedrin the Lesser-Known (# 11399) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JArthurCrank:
[Killing me]

Where's the provisional IRA when you need 'em?

No, I can HARDLY wait for the Fred Phelps to show up at a St. Patrick's Day parade somewhere ranting about "Fag Paddy" and "Fag Ireland." That may very well be the last we will hear of the Phelps clan.

I prefer a Monty Python-esque demise for their lot: thing the Hand of God extending a finger to obliterate Westboro Baptist and everybody in it.
 
Posted by flighty (# 11364) on :
 
In regards to the godhatesireland ediarrhoea Phelpsy Sr spewed out...

He seems awfully sure that an invitation to a debate is a plot to arrest him.

I'm pretty sure that if the Irish wanted to stop the Phelps klan (yes it was an intentional k) then they would just use some of their surplus IRA boys and/or girls instead of in international public invitation to a debate on GAY RIGHTS which he publicly despises.

Hmmmm....Phelpsy Sr seems paranoid. But it's not paranoia when they ARE out to get ya!!!

I wonder what the Irish would do...
It brings a smile to my face [Smile]


-[spleeling]-

[ 27. July 2007, 05:41: Message edited by: flighty ]
 
Posted by Beautiful_Dreamer (# 10880) on :
 
I was not sure if the Godhatesireland.com site was a spoof or was real. It was just so ridiculous. What is Phelps' damage anyway? He comes across as a very sad person who wants to make sure everyone else is miserable too.
 
Posted by Jimmy B (# 220) on :
 
quote:
Kelly:
maybe the Rainbow Coalition paid him off to underline the few gay-friendly comments Jer made.

Mm. Do any of this category (gay-friendly comments by Jerry) actually exist? I'm very curious, if you have any further info.
 
Posted by Saint Hedrin the Lesser-Known (# 11399) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beautiful_Dreamer:
I was not sure if the Godhatesireland.com site was a spoof or was real. It was just so ridiculous. What is Phelps' damage anyway? He comes across as a very sad person who wants to make sure everyone else is miserable too.

He has way too many issues. I suppose a McSweeney's contributor can have a field day of it....
 
Posted by Squirrel (# 3040) on :
 
How does Phelps harm people? Well, how would you like to have a relative get his or her head blown off in Iraq, then hear him outside the funeral making light of it all?

These guys have been organized largely to keep Fred and Company away from military funerals.
 
Posted by Catrine (# 9811) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beautiful_Dreamer:
I was not sure if the Godhatesireland.com site was a spoof or was real. It was just so ridiculous.

How can they cram so much over-reaction into one man?
 
Posted by Beautiful_Dreamer (# 10880) on :
 
Well I have seen his site about God hating Sweden, it is linked on his site about God hating gay people. Like an idiot, I clicked on a link in a thread about Phelps and it came to that site. I really should have known better than to think anything worth looking at could come from this guy. He is so ridiculous that it is really sad.
 
Posted by Squirrel (# 3040) on :
 
I hardly think Pastor Fred is sad. He's done damn well for himself and his family.
 
Posted by Scribehunter (# 12750) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Squirrel:
I hardly think Pastor Fred is sad. He's done damn well for himself and his family.

What do you mean by this accusation?
 
Posted by Beautiful_Dreamer (# 10880) on :
 
Yes, but look how many people he had to step on to do it. The fact that this thread has gone on as long as it has shows that he is at least successful in getting people to hate him. He seems to have made a living out of being completely depraved. I shudder to think what it must be like to be related to this guy.
 
Posted by Frater_Frag (# 2184) on :
 
And here is another way to deal with these jerks... [Devil]

Solution?

[WARNING: advertisements on the linked site are not work/toddler safe.
comet
Hellhost]

[ 02. August 2007, 08:57: Message edited by: comet ]
 
Posted by Squirrel (# 3040) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beautiful_Dreamer:
Yes, but look how many people he had to step on to do it. The fact that this thread has gone on as long as it has shows that he is at least successful in getting people to hate him. He seems to have made a living out of being completely depraved. I shudder to think what it must be like to be related to this guy.

From what I have read, most of his church is made up of relatives. So I gather those related to him share his views.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I dunno. I think it's kinda sad that these people seem to fanatically devoted the Jesus and the Bible, yet seem to have missed the point so utterly. Like squeezing blood out of turnips or or getting yet another turn of the screw or some other apt metaphor for futility....


Zach
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I dunno. I think it's kinda sad that these people seem to fanatically devoted the Jesus and the Bible, yet seem to have missed the point so utterly. Like squeezing blood out of turnips or or getting yet another turn of the screw or some other apt metaphor for futility....


Zach

Are they? Sometimes, when people miss the point so badly, I wonder if they're actually fanatically devoted to queer-hating, and their devotion to Jesus and the Bible is driven by the support they believe they can twist out of it for their hatred fuelled agenda.

cf. Tomas de Torquemada.
 
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Hedrin the Lesser-Known:
this just in?

Goodness! [Mad] [Mad] [Mad]

If that isn't a pisstake I'm quite proud of my little island for attracting the ire of the Phelps clan. [Yipee]
 
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Hedrin the Lesser-Known:
this just in?

Goodness! [Mad] [Mad] [Mad]

If that isn't a pisstake I'm quite proud of my little island for attracting the ire of the Phelps clan. [Yipee]
Can someone in Dublin organize a welcoming party with stakes and matches???
On Second thought, that might make them think they will get an entry in "Foxe's Book of Martyrs"
 
Posted by Beautiful_Dreamer (# 10880) on :
 
I don't know if that one is a joke or not. It is just so absurd. I know there is one about God hating Sweden (for what reason, I don't know), but something tells me Mr. Phelps has too much time on his hands.
 
Posted by Paul W. (# 1450) on :
 
Ooo look, the Minnesota bridge collapse was apparently caused by gays too! Who would have guessed?

Paul W
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
from the article:
quote:
In a press release issued the day after the bridge collapse, the church called for protests at the funerals and outlined its feelings about the relationship between God's plan and the sins of Minneapolis and Minnesota, which it calls the "land of the Sodomite damned."
oh yah! Doncha know what a hotbed of hedomism and kinky sex they have up there! What else ya gonna do on the prairie when the winds'r blowin'? Yer gonna corrupt the world, that's what! After you make a tuna hotdish, of course. Good hotdish always comes first. Yah!

*nods*
 
Posted by Izzybee (# 10931) on :
 
Gosh. I wonder if you colored in every state, city and country that's the "land of the sodomite damned" according to Phelps, whether you'd have any land left uncolored?

Presumably there's at least a small patch of Topeka, KS that he feels is OK, and presumably Antarctica couldn't have done anything to offend him...

[ETA: Fixing quote. Not just depraved but sodomite damned. Scary]

[ 10. August 2007, 14:58: Message edited by: Izzybee ]
 
Posted by DaisyM (# 9098) on :
 
Wow !! We could stop doing red states and blue states and just do "gay agenda" states and "resisting the danger of damnation" states.

[Devil]
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
I wonder if the mining collapse in Utah -- probably the most conservative state in the U.S. -- is for the same reason?
 
Posted by rosamundi (# 2495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Paul W.:
Ooo look, the Minnesota bridge collapse was apparently caused by gays too! Who would have guessed?

Paul W

Apparently the bridge collapsed because when the Phelpses (Phelpsii?) were picketing in Minneapolis, they had some of their signs taken away.
quote:
Twice they stole our picket signs violently, and right out of our hands - on the public sidewalk in front of the Basilica of St. Mary, 88 N. 17th St., Minneapolis, MN - as the police looked on and laughed. Typical Minnesotans.
We want our property back.

Uh. Yeah. Absolutely.

The good Revd. Phelps is bonkers, and in need of our prayers.

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
I wonder if the mining collapse in Utah -- probably the most conservative state in the U.S. -- is for the same reason?

Well, duh!
[Disappointed]

[ 13. August 2007, 21:22: Message edited by: rosamundi ]
 
Posted by JArthurCrank (# 9175) on :
 
I really hope they try to protest the Merv Griffin funeral mass. Perhaps the choir can step outside and sing "I've Got a Lovely Bunch of Coconuts" in their general direction.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Izzybee:
Presumably there's at least a small patch of Topeka, KS that he feels is OK, and presumably Antarctica couldn't have done anything to offend him...

Ah, but aren't some of those penguins gay?
 
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by Izzybee:
Presumably there's at least a small patch of Topeka, KS that he feels is OK, and presumably Antarctica couldn't have done anything to offend him...

Ah, but aren't some of those penguins gay?
Even if they aren't, they haven't done anything to prevent the gayness that goes on in other parts of the globe. If they were good, red-blooded, God-fearing Christian penguins, they would be here with us picketing outside the funerals of puffins, whom we all know are ... well, you know.
 
Posted by Paul W. (# 1450) on :
 
Well, these are South American gay penguins, but I guess they get up to that kind of stuff in Antarctica too.

godhatespenguins.com - just watch this space...

Paul W
 
Posted by flighty (# 11364) on :
 
MT...

[Overused] [Killing me]
 
Posted by flighty (# 11364) on :
 
I wonder why Phelps and his clan of inbreds will never agree to a debate with a christian...?
 
Posted by SearchingForAbsolutes (# 11966) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by flighty:
I wonder why Phelps and his clan of inbreds will never agree to a debate with a christian...?

He once did a debate with John Rankin, but wouldn't answer any of Rankin's questions. Phelps has got that smart-dumb thing going on: he's dumb enough to know he's wrong but keep insisting he's right, but he's smart enough to know that he can't possibly win an argument for his case, so he resorts to name-calling and dodging questions...

The guy would do great in politics (and I hear he's a Democrat!)
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Songs of Praise:
I think <snip>* his usual MO.

[Tangent] Oh hello - long time no see. You and I were newbies on the same day - I remember it well! I've often wondered how you were going![/Tangent]

*Snip to save hosts' time!
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
[Further tangent] Oh ye gods ... just noticed
quote:
Posted 03 April, 2007 02:52
[Hot and Hormonal]

Ah well - it was nice to see her/him pop up again. Kinda nostalgic, really. [/Further tangent]
 
Posted by Songs of Praise (# 8435) on :
 
Hi Zappa (and others). I am still around, nearly three years on from a cancer scare. I'm still in remission and in good health. I also kicked in my job after nearly 20 years to work as a freelance musician, web designer and journalist - which, as any other self-employed person might tell you, is probably the reason I've not found time to visit here.

There - enough nice talk in hell for now! [Smile]
 
Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Paul W.:
Well, these are South American gay penguins, but I guess they get up to that kind of stuff in Antarctica too.

godhatespenguins.com - just watch this space...

Paul W

Indeed, penguins are the wanton Sodomites of the avian world. Behold, more evidence of their transgressions!

Phelpsy and co had better get cracking. Ah wait, they're already cracked.
 
Posted by PeteCanada (# 10422) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
Indeed, penguins are the wanton Sodomites of the avian world. Behold, more evidence of their transgressions!

[Eek!] Has someone told our Smudgie?
 
Posted by Campbellite (# 1202) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SearchingForAbsolutes:
The guy would do great in politics (and I hear he's a Democrat!)

What? That bunch of gay-friendly libruls? I doubt it.

By his own (twisted) logic, if he votes at all, he is collaborating with The Gay Agenda™ (whatever that is), and thus is going to Hell. (To everyone's delight, except, perhaps, Satan's) [Eek!]
 
Posted by Squirrel (# 3040) on :
 
Even the military is too librul and gay-friendly for Pastor Fred. I doubt whether any organization, political party or other, would meet his demanding standards.
 
Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Campbellite:
... The Gay Agenda™ (whatever that is)...

Look no further - Betty Bowers to the rescue - here it is!
 
Posted by SearchingForAbsolutes (# 11966) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Campbellite:
quote:
Originally posted by SearchingForAbsolutes:
The guy would do great in politics (and I hear he's a Democrat!)

What? That bunch of gay-friendly libruls? I doubt it.
He's run as a Dem in 5 Kansas primaries. Back in the day, he had Al and Tipper over for a support rally at his home/compound. I guess he's disappointed in the Democrat support for gay rights, but we all know, American politics works best when you pick a party and stick with it, regardless of whether or not you like what they stand for.
 
Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
For anyone interested, the latest from Phelps: (or at least his organization)

Anti-Gay Church: Thompson Agreed With Us
 
Posted by Beautiful_Dreamer (# 10880) on :
 
The smartest thing Fred Thompson could do (and anyone else, for that matter) would be to completely distance himself from *anything* that comes out of Westboro Baptist. Their support is not worth anything. Thompson should consider it an *honor* to be told by the Phelps clan that they do not agree anymore, if they ever really did.

And I thought Thompson was smarter than to agree with anything that comes from Fred Phelps. I hope I wasn't wrong.
 
Posted by Frustrated Farmer (# 10782) on :
 
According to the local newspaper today, a bomb threat was alleged to have been called in to Phred's church yesterday, while most of the gang was out of town. No bomb found, however plenty of TV air time. [Mad]
 
Posted by SearchingForAbsolutes (# 11966) on :
 
Phelps Theology 101

1- Every act on Earth is controlled by God.
ex: The U.S. army is being punished by God, who uses "perverts" to kill soldiers. Mine collapses, Amish school shootings, etc. are also God's judgments. God should be praised for these, no matter what they are.

However, any bad happenings for Phelpsco or their compound is the sinful world persecuting them.

If he wasn't a clergyman, I'd think he was manipulative.


Anyone into copyright laws? With that banner on GodHatesIreland.com, I'd love to see Notre Dame and General Mills put these folks in the red for a loooooong time.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
A federal jury on Wednesday awarded the father of a fallen Marine $2.9 million in compensatory damages after finding an anti-gay Kansas church and three of its leaders liable for invasion of privacy and intent to inflict emotional distress for picketing the Marine's funeral in 2006...

[Yipee]

I'm trying to find a good link to this.
 
Posted by sandushinka (# 13021) on :
 
Here's one.
 
Posted by DaisyM (# 9098) on :
 
Good for the Charm City jury!
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
It's a wonderful victory for the Snyder family, with a cherry on top:
quote:
The judge said the church's financial statements, sealed earlier, could be released to the plaintiffs.
Oh, dear. Do you think the plaintiffs will be able to resist the temptation to make the financial shena- excuse me, statements of Fred's cult/family public? [Snigger] [Devil] OliviaG
 
Posted by Frustrated Farmer (# 10782) on :
 
I am sure that the state of Phred's finances would be of great interest to many people in his home community. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by teddybear (# 7842) on :
 
Now everyone keep your fingers crossed that they lose the inevitable appeal.
 
Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :
 
Can a USA friend enlighten us here over this side of the water?
What happens now if Phelps and Co can't and/or won't pay?
The news article implied that the judge felt that the award was higher than the defendants' assets. Am I reading this OK? If so, what next?

But I agree - a wonderful result [Smile]
 
Posted by Frustrated Farmer (# 10782) on :
 
Now that they have a judgement, I would guess that the Phelps would have to put up all of their assets to pay the award. If they plead poverty, I believe that they can be hauled into court occasionally if the winners believe they have acquired something of value that can be used to pay the judgement.

Perhaps someone who is more knowledgeable about this can comment.
 
Posted by 206 (# 206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TonyK:
Can a USA friend enlighten us here over this side of the water?
What happens now if Phelps and Co can't and/or won't pay?

IANAL and ought to know better than to comment but I think some assets could be seized; I don't think they could be put out on the street. IIRC correctly OJ is still living pretty well.

BTW, the jury came back with punitive damages and now the award is approaching 11 million.

ISTM this verdict is going to really complicate Fred's theological reasoning.
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
Phred and company have several alternatives. First, they can appeal the judgement. I believe they will almost certainly do this as long as they can meet the Rule 1* requirements of their counsel. An appeal is bound to take a while and will delay collection efforts as long as they can afford the appeal bond to stay collection.

Second, they can ignore it. This will result in some sort of collection effort, although that depends on how avid the dad and counsel are for the money. In an irony that is fairly delicious, these wonderful folks financed themselves by suing people they had irritated into hitting them. There might be some of that money left. Additionally, the church building is bound to have some value as a tourist attraction if nothing else. Will the dad ever get all $10.9M? Not likely. As best I can tell, Fred cannot make that kind of jack practicing law and the marketable skills of the rest of the family appear to be nil.**

Third, they can declare some sort of bankruptcy. As they are apparently not farmers, they can go for a Chapter 7, a Chapter 11, or a Chapter 13. In a 7, they turn over all their assets with any equity and tell their creditors to have fun with the carrion, but to go away after that. In an 11, they stymie collection efforts by endless meetings of secured creditors and unsecured creditors. OK, sorry, they work out a "plan" for paying off debt. In a 13, which would require them to be gainfully employed, they can pay off unsecured creditors (like the dad) at less than 1 cent on the dollar. The problem they face is that they would still have to cough up around $54,000 at even ½ cent per dollar, or a .5 % premium. Additionally, I am not sure how much co-operation they would get from the Trustee or the Judge.


___________
*Rule 1: Always get paid.
Rule 2: Always get paid up front by fruitcakes who have a $10.9M judgment against them.

**They could always earn a living by torturing suspects for Homeland Security. I can imagine most would be terrorists begging for mercy after being with them for half an hour or more.
 
Posted by 206 (# 206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Additionally, the church building is bound to have some value as a tourist attraction if nothing else.

If memory serves their church building is also their home. Can they lose their primary place of residence?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Additionally, the church building is bound to have some value as a tourist attraction if nothing else.

If memory serves their church building is also their home. Can they lose their primary place of residence?
If everyone goes along gawping at the Phelpsians they may even sue. Then again, it does look like a down-market "community centre" made of breezeblock (cinderblock) so I can't imagine many would.
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
If memory serves their church building is also their home. Can they lose their primary place of residence?

Yes, under the right circumstances, they can lose their primary residence. It depends on the equity they have in the place among other things.
 
Posted by Saint Hedrin the Lesser-Known (# 11399) on :
 
I ventured idly into their official website and looked at their picketing schedule. It appears that the millions they stand to lose due to the lawsuit does not hinder them from staging a picket at Helsinki for the Jokela massacre.

Silly people! Me-doubts that they'll even get visas to visit Finland.

Lord help me if they decide to picket the nearest Finnish consulate in the region.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
IIRC, they were wisely kept out of the UK some years back.
 
Posted by Saint Hedrin the Lesser-Known (# 11399) on :
 
With recent news of a bombing at the Philippine House of Representatives' compound, resulting in the death of a Muslim congressman (Rep. Wahab Akbar of Basilan), I won't be surprised if Phred Felps and his little horde will want to picket the Batasan ("Legislature") complex.

what's worse is that a lot of people enjoy 3 weeks' worth of visa-free stay in this country. [Disappointed] Then again, the millions they have to pay the Snyders might delay that jaut a bit, and by then, that part of Batasan will have been cleared of rubble and restored to its regular use, although the business of legislation will be conducted with some mourning over the loss of one of their own.

I pray God that should any member of the Fleps family set foot on these Islands, let them be detained and deported as personae non gratae, or be welcomed by the local Hare Krishna in full force... Or the Catholic Bishops with the ghost of Cardinal Sin hovering overhead.
 
Posted by Frustrated Farmer (# 10782) on :
 
I have a report that the clan is headed to Omaha, Nebraska to demonstrate at the shopping mall that was the scene of some violence this week.

[Frown]
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
"Fall from Grace" is being televised in the U.S. this week -- for those who have premium cable t.v.
 
Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :
 
The most interesting element of the Phelps' warped theology is the concept of the "fag enabler". This is a person who, although not personally homosexual, is nevertheless deserving of condemnation for not opposing homosexuality. This guilt is corporate - entire nations are to blame especially the [Devil] EVIL COUNTRY OF SWEDEN [Devil] . Even if you are personally opposed to homosexuality, by the very fact of living in a country where homosexuality is tolerated you become a fag enabler, and thus a fair target for picketting. It was by this curious logic that the Phelps ended up picking a shop in the US which sold Swedish domestic appliances - complete with "Fag Nation" signs in abundance. Incidentally, the King of Sweden is suing for defamation.
 
Posted by Living in Gin (# 2572) on :
 
So, if the US decided to pass a federal law protecting the civil rights of GLBT people, Phelps and his minions would be forced to move somewhere more conservative like, say, Afghanistan?

Sounds like everybody comes out a winner in that deal.

(grammar)

[ 11. December 2007, 22:01: Message edited by: Living in Gin ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Gin, ROTFL! [Smile]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Living in Gin:
So, if the US decided to pass a federal law protecting the civil rights of GLBT people, Phelps and his minions would be forced to move somewhere more conservative like, say, Afghanistan?

Sounds like everybody comes out a winner in that deal.

(grammar)

[Tear] Afghanis [Tear]

Like they don't have enough trouble.
 
Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Living in Gin:
So, if the US decided to pass a federal law protecting the civil rights of GLBT people, Phelps and his minions would be forced to move somewhere more conservative like, say, Afghanistan?

Sounds like everybody comes out a winner in that deal.

[Tear] Afghanis [Tear]

Like they don't have enough trouble.

I agree - although I have to say that in a match-up between the Phelpses and the Taliban there's going to be only one winner...
 
Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :
 
If the US Constitution guarantees the right of the Phelps clan to go about their strange business more-or-less without restraint or molestation, does this mean that the United States is a nation of Phelphs-enablers?
 
Posted by 206 (# 206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
If the US Constitution guarantees the right of the Phelps clan to go about their strange business more-or-less without restraint or molestation, does this mean that the United States is a nation of Phelphs-enablers?

I hope to God, yes.

Better to acknowledge the boil than let it fester under layers of smug censorship.
 
Posted by Campbellite (# 1202) on :
 
It's that whole "market place of ideas" thing. By allowing them to expose their ideas in public, they expose themselves to the ridicule and comtempt of all right thinking people, which would be pretty much the rest of the entire human race.

In other words, they protest; everyone else points and laughs.
 
Posted by Billfrid (# 7279) on :
 
Points and laughs?
Oh yes, the Irish site is a hoot "the poison potato earth" and so on, you couldn't make it up.
Seriously though - have the Phelpses bought up every domain name starting with "godhates" and then the name of a geographical area? (Thinks a bit then goes on to the electric internet...)

I don't believe it!!!
https://secure.uk2.net/cgi-bin/register/newdomain.pl?domain=godhatesphelpses&x=8&y=12&javascript=on
GODHATESPHELPSES.COM IS FREE!

[Killing me]
Please somebody - buy it, pretty pretty please.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Please refrain from appearing to promote any questionable or adversarial public actions.

Thanks.

-RooK
Hellhost
 
Posted by Frustrated Farmer (# 10782) on :
 
If I might be allowed a moment, the clan was back out on the street corner today across from the ECUSA parish I lurk at. The first Sunday back at their old location since the fire, and I got to see their clever signs. [Projectile]
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
You see, Farmer, I think your parish has some great opportunity here. I'm not sure what, exactly. kill them with kindness?

x-lax brownies?

calling in 5,000 hare krishnas to tambourine them to death? there has just got to be something basically harmless but really devious and funny, too.

something worth videotaping.

WWMPD*....

I'll put my thinking cap on. I feel a special shipmeet coming on.

*what would monty python do?

(hope you survived the storm intact, by the way)
 
Posted by Billfrid (# 7279) on :
 
Dear Hellhost - I didn't "advocate" anything - I just pointed out that a domain name was free, and legally purchasable.
Though if you think you can read minds and predict actions, you could get a real job somewhere.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Dear Billfrid,

I knew you were going to say that, thanks to my mystical Hellhost powers. If you don't like my instruction, feel free to pursue it in the Styx.

My powers also have divined that you're a shithead. Just thought I'd mention that, in case you hadn't noticed it yourself.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
comet!

What did I just say about not appearing to promote anything on these boards? At least have the common decency of undermining my appearance of an illusion of authority on a separate thread. Don't make me pull rank and flog you with your own pitchfork.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
whups, sorry boss.

got carried away in the moment.

*hangs head in shame*
 
Posted by Billfrid (# 7279) on :
 
rookisacunt.com is also free - maybe I'll buy it.

[removed link, just in case it confuses the slowest amongst us. comet, Hellhost

[ 17. December 2007, 17:21: Message edited by: comet ]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Billfrid:
rookisacunt.com is also free - maybe I'll buy it.

You may well have bought it as the Boys in Blue used to say in the Battle of Britain.

[ditto to edit above. comet, Hellhost]

[ 17. December 2007, 17:22: Message edited by: comet ]
 
Posted by Billfrid (# 7279) on :
 
Aw, that's ok, I have an infinite number of alter-egos at my command. Fly my pretties!
BYEEEEE!
 
Posted by Otter (# 12020) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Billfrid:
I have an infinite number of alter-egos at my command.

Fuckmuppet, asshat, or plain 'ol blithering idiot? I just can't decide...
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Sounds like a flounce AND a sockpuppet threat, all in one. Way to save bandwidth!
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
An article on Phelps and others is in the recent 'From our own correspondent' programme on BBC Radio 4.

Audio available from same link.

quote:
A million Kansans will be taking their Bibles to church in the coming week but they will not be bashing them.

 
Posted by Grizzy (# 3286) on :
 
quote:
It's that whole "market place of ideas" thing. By allowing them to expose their ideas in public, they expose themselves to the ridicule and comtempt of all right thinking people, which would be pretty much the rest of the entire human race.

Eh, I think by ridiculing them, we're still giving them attention, which is what they seem to get off on. They're like badly behaved children who will do anything to get people to look at them, always looking for the next most absurd stunt they could pull. If it were possible for us all to collectively ignore them when they act up, I bet they would find some other way to deal with their issues. (But they make it hard by being so shockingly offensive.)
 
Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
I don't know where the video was originally posted, but here is a valuable comment on and opportunity to view something I hope Michael Jackson will sue over...

The only thing that really scares me is that someone might actually think Phelps and his hate-clan are Christians-- [Frown]
 
Posted by Clairvauxant (# 13271) on :
 
That video is one of the most disturbing things that I have ever seen.
 
Posted by bc_anglican (# 12349) on :
 
Freaking.

I think the Phelps clan is a classic case of a cult in the United States. The fact is, the Phelps family are pretty much isolated from everyone.

They really don't understand anything of the Gospel message. They are following after something, but it isn't Jesus.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
I just realized that they've somehow confused christ with Cthulhu.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
how big is the WBC? is it really just an extended family, as it looks from here? or do they have actual followers?

anyone know?

(Frustrated Farmer?)
 
Posted by Squirrel (# 3040) on :
 
I read somewhere that it has about 30 members.
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
I don't know where the video was originally posted, but here is a valuable comment on and opportunity to view something I hope Michael Jackson will sue over...

The only thing that really scares me is that someone might actually think Phelps and his hate-clan are Christians-- [Frown]

Fucking [Help] .
I thought I wouldn't be surprised any more by the things they get up to - clearly I was wrong.

Where did I read something along the lines of;
quote:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.


[ 23. December 2007, 13:56: Message edited by: luvanddaisies ]
 
Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
Once again I think the best response is to pray for these people - God loves them regardless, just as much as he loves you or me.

[Votive]
 
Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
A further thought:

Yes, these people are appalling and their views are appalling but then I have been faced with homophobia on a pretty much daily basis since before I was even sexually aware so it isn't really news to me - indeed similar views, although generally not couched in such extreme language, are quite a regular occurrence here on the Ship of Fools. In a sense give me the open homophobes any day rather than those that attempt to hide their venom behind sweet words - an honest enemy in front of me is preferable to the honey-tongued back-stabbing bastard behind me!

And because it now involves folks other than fags, indeed the whole world, am I suddenly supposed to take it more seriously?

Well, I'm not sure I can to do that - I'll continue to pray for them and those anti-human rights advocates here on the Ship. I'll even continue to love them all and seek that of God in them all - and I shall thank God that I am not commanded to like them all!
 
Posted by Beautiful_Dreamer (# 10880) on :
 
Stupid, slightly tangental question.

How can anyone really be against human rights? Especially if they call themselves Christian? It really doesn't add up.
 
Posted by Frustrated Farmer (# 10782) on :
 
Comet:

I cannot say how many members they have in their church, other than family members, but I do not think that there are many. When anyone from the church is quoted, it is one of the children.

After a 9 inch snow storm yesterday, I do not know if they made their usual Sunday schedule of picketing. [Confused]
 
Posted by Squirrel (# 3040) on :
 
I also read that most of the WBC's members are related to dear Pastor Fred. As the host of that video site remarked, they do look related to one another. Perhaps inbreeding has caused some mental deficiency.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Hmm. No 'perhaps' about it, IMHO.

Even if there are only 30 or so of them, they still make a hell of a noise and cause a hell of a fuss.

[Votive]

Ian J.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
In a sense give me the open homophobes any day rather than those that attempt to hide their venom behind sweet words - an honest enemy in front of me is preferable to the honey-tongued back-stabbing bastard behind me!

[Overused]

[ 23. December 2007, 21:37: Message edited by: comet ]
 
Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
That's very scriptural, WW - "faithful are the wounds of a friend" -- (actually Prov. 27:4-6 is all pretty relevant: Wrath is fierce and anger is a flood, but who can stand before jealousy? (5) Better is open rebuke than love that is concealed. (6) Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but deceitful are the kisses of an enemy.) and Psalm 55:12-14 is profound: For it is not an enemy who reproaches me, then I could bear it; nor is it one who hates me who has exalted himself against me, then I could hide myself from him. But it is you, a man my equal, my companion and my familiar friend; we who had sweet fellowship together walked in the house of God in the throng. Both God and man know a thing or two about betrayal.

A really scary thought is that these people might be Christians in some way yet they actively refute so much of what Jesus explicitly said... talk about grieving God... [Frown]
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
quote:
Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
an honest enemy in front of me is preferable to the honey-tongued back-stabbing bastard behind me!

[Overused]
You know, I never thought of that as the "Siné getting rugburns" smilie before.
 
Posted by Squirrel (# 3040) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Hmm. No 'perhaps' about it, IMHO.

Even if there are only 30 or so of them, they still make a hell of a noise and cause a hell of a fuss.

[Votive]

Ian J.

I also read that a lot of them are lawyers. Goes to show it doesn't take too much smarts to get through law school nowadays.
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
Yep, the song parody was horrid, and I found myself hoping for a knock-down, drag-out, copyright violation lawsuit... until I saw the last 20 seconds - for the love of the sweet baby Jesus, that's CHILD ABUSE. [Projectile] [Mad] [Waterworks] Now I'm hoping the child protection authorities in Kansas see that video and do something about these Phucking Phelpses before there's another Waco or People's Temple. [Votive] OliviaG
 
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
May God bless that child, and set her free from the evil that has been done to her. [Votive]

And the rest of her family as well.
 
Posted by Beautiful_Dreamer (# 10880) on :
 
I saw the parody video, and to me it seems more like an instruction of how NOT to be Christ-like than anything else. What really makes me sick is that there are people who actually believe this crap, and that there are people who think this represents all of us Christians.

If I had to change the label I used for my faith to disassociate from these people, I would. Hopefully I won't have to, because these people will be seen for the hateful bigots they are.

And yes, I agree that teaching that to the child is a form of abuse. We can only pray that she comes to see the real Jesus and rejects what she has been taught in terms of this evil.
 
Posted by flighty (# 11364) on :
 
Here is the latest.

Apparently anyone having anything to do at all with Brokeback Mountain is a fag enabler.

I wonder how WBC found out about Brokeback Mountain? Wouldn't reading about it/reading plot lines equate to reading gay propaganda? What about hearing about it? Isn't that the same as listening to gay propaganda?

the best part about these morons is that nobody took them seriously before, and now they have proven themselves just a punch-line to a joke.

who honestly forms an opinion of someone based on a character they portrayed as a critically acclaimed professional actor?

Even the regular lunacy of Phred and Klan has been surpassed by this!!

(dammit can't spel proppperley )

[ 24. January 2008, 10:39: Message edited by: flighty ]
 
Posted by PeaceFeet (# 11001) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by flighty:
(dammit can't spel proppperley )

Maybe that is Phred's problem too?
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by flighty:
Here is the latest.

Apparently anyone having anything to do at all with Brokeback Mountain is a fag enabler.

I wonder how WBC found out about Brokeback Mountain? Wouldn't reading about it/reading plot lines equate to reading gay propaganda? What about hearing about it? Isn't that the same as listening to gay propaganda?

the best part about these morons is that nobody took them seriously before, and now they have proven themselves just a punch-line to a joke.

who honestly forms an opinion of someone based on a character they portrayed as a critically acclaimed professional actor?

Even the regular lunacy of Phred and Klan has been surpassed by this!!

(dammit can't spel proppperley )

Bastards! Vile, shitty, moronic bastards! [Mad]

BTW, wtf is a 'fag-enabler'? Someone who dishes out condoms at Gay Pride?
 
Posted by rosamundi (# 2495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
BTW, wtf is a 'fag-enabler'? Someone who dishes out condoms at Gay Pride?

As best I can judge, a "fag enabler" is anyone who, by whatever means, in Revd. Phelps' opinion, supports homosexuals.

So every Catholic is a fag-enabler, because by supporting the Catholic Church, they are supporting a network of paedophile priests with every penny they put in the collection plate.

Every Swedish person is a fag-enabler merely by virtue of living in Sweden, because of their extensive gay rights laws. Even if they don't specifically agree with the law, by not emigrating, they automatically become a fag enabler. Etc.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
So all Brits are fag-enablers because we have civil partnerships?

Hang on a minute - Phreaky Phred Phelps is a US citizen, right? And the US hasn't banned same-sex relationships, right? So, isn't Phreddy a fag-enabler also, and thus hell-bound spawn of the Devil?

Hey, my day just started to look better... [Big Grin]
 
Posted by rufiki (# 11165) on :
 
I think you're only a fag-enabler if you don't protest. So perhaps amend that to "all Brits except for Mr Christian Voice".

Sorry Matt.
 
Posted by rosamundi (# 2495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
So all Brits are fag-enablers because we have civil partnerships?

Probably. Also we fund the BBC, which is a fag-enabling corporation, because of Louis Theroux.

quote:
Hang on a minute - Phreaky Phred Phelps is a US citizen, right? And the US hasn't banned same-sex relationships, right? So, isn't Phreddy a fag-enabler also, and thus hell-bound spawn of the Devil?
Alas no, because his God hates fags, and so does he, and thus he is doing the Lord's work. I'm sure I read somewhere on his mad site that only members of WBC are saved.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
The Warsash Bowling Club? Great - I'm joining!
 
Posted by bc_anglican (# 12349) on :
 
http://youtube.com/watch?v=SVGQONqhGcY

I have a dumb question. If America is as evil as the Phelps gang says, then why would they use the American court system to get off from not paying damages? If the whole system is as rotten as they say it is, then why do they immerse themselves in it?
 
Posted by Beautiful_Dreamer (# 10880) on :
 
Parody of Phelps sites

You know, they do have a point. Why only focus on one Levitical law and ignore others? [Smile]

This made me laugh out loud.

[ 26. January 2008, 04:20: Message edited by: Beautiful_Dreamer ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
They were going to picket the funeral of Mr. Rogers, beloved and compassionate kids' show host and advocate, some years back...but IIRC they didn't show up.
 
Posted by rufiki (# 11165) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=SVGQONqhGcY

"Today, nine of [Fred's] thirteen children carry on his work." I wonder what the other four are doing.

The interview with his two grandsons (8 and 10) is particularly worrying, but the fact that they don't seem to understand the message may be cause for some hope.
 
Posted by flighty (# 11364) on :
 
This video so definitely needs to get circulated more!!!
 
Posted by SpikeyPants (# 12953) on :
 
So, Fred Phelps is the head of a "picketing church", hunh? Well, I got pickets for him and his ass clown family members! I watched "Buffy The Vampire Slayer", I know how to deal with the undead!

If Freddie and Co. aren't the Undead, I don't know who is!

"You want some fries with that STAKE, eh, Freddie?!"

And that's my Christian response. Sorry, Jesus.
[Two face]
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
I enjoyed this very much.

ah.... simple pleasures... [Devil]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
I remember seeing that before. Only time I haven't despised a Phelps family member.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
Which one didn't you despise?
[Confused]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
The fact that the guy holding the sign (I assume he's a family member-- isn't that the whole church?) was giggling like a grade schooler instead of getting murderously angry made me not hate him so much. Maybe there's hope for that guy.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Yeah, it seemed rather like play acting, didn't it? Fred Phelps himself is a super-sicko, but I wonder if some of his hangers-on are just weak egos desperately in need of something to belong to. I would have expected the "admiree" to get really angry and bent out of shape, but he seemed to be disarmed, and even the vociferous women in the group came across in a decidely superficial way that didn't seem to ring true.
 
Posted by Beautiful_Dreamer (# 10880) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
They were going to picket the funeral of Mr. Rogers, beloved and compassionate kids' show host and advocate, some years back...but IIRC they didn't show up.

Stupid question, but...why? What did he ever do to deserve that sort of attention?
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
He wasn't a good enough example of chest-thumpin' masculine protest and reaction formative homophobia, perhaps?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Re Mr. Rogers:

IIRC, it seemed to be because he was compassionate, accepting, and didn't speak out against LGBT folks.

Of course, you don't have to do anything for Fred & Co. to picket you. They've picketed funerals of soldiers, evidently on the grounds that God is against LGBT folks, the US enables LGBT folks, and the soldiers work for the US gov't.

It's the same kind of "thinking" that had *other* ministers blaming LGBTs, feminists, etc. for 9/11. We're a good, Christian nation, established and protected by God; 9/11 could only happen if God removed that protection; God would only do that if we were really really bad; most people aren't THAT bad; therefore it has to be certain groups of people.

It's at about this point that I start humming John Lennon's "Imagine".

[brick wall] [Roll Eyes] [Votive]
 
Posted by PeaceFeet (# 11001) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Of course, you don't have to do anything for Fred & Co. to picket you.

It’s almost a stamp of your good character if they hate you…
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
I know this isn't specifically a Phelps-watch item, but the Phelps Crowd doesn't grow as an isolated perennial; there is an entire Garden of Haters providing a comfortable sun-kissed hillside for their crazy shit.

Herewith is another flower set adjacent to the Phelps perennial.
 
Posted by Frustrated Farmer (# 10782) on :
 
I just had a report that Fred and Co. picketed a memorial service held for four high school students who were killed in an automobile accident. The residents of this community were in a state of shock over this terrible loss, and then found out that the gang was coming to the area. [Projectile]
 
Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
I know this isn't specifically a Phelps-watch item, but the Phelps Crowd doesn't grow as an isolated perennial; there is an entire Garden of Haters providing a comfortable sun-kissed hillside for their crazy shit.

Herewith is another flower set adjacent to the Phelps perennial.

Strange and glorious flowers indeed. Wake me when they get to the thrown into the fire bit of that lifecycle.
 
Posted by Saint Hedrin the Lesser-Known (# 11399) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Farmer:
I just had a report that Fred and Co. picketed a memorial service held for four high school students who were killed in an automobile accident. The residents of this community were in a state of shock over this terrible loss, and then found out that the gang was coming to the area. [Projectile]

Are they close to picketing the papal vist, too?
 
Posted by Frustrated Farmer (# 10782) on :
 
I just checked Phred's website, and not only are they picketing the Pope in Washington and New York, they are picketing the funeral of four Nazarenes that were killed in an automobile accident in California. [Projectile] [Waterworks]

My only hope is that if there is a grand accounting some day for what we have done on earth, the clan will not be able to explain away all their calumny.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
It would be nice if the pope would stroll over to them and have a little chat...even if he just quietly said "you're going the wrong way" or "you don't know what kind of Spirit you are of".

It would need to be clear, though, that he wasn't agreeing with them--otherwise, they'd say he was, and use it as propaganda. (If they could bring themselves to accept the "support" of a Catholic.)
 
Posted by Campbellite (# 1202) on :
 
Don't hold your breath, Golden Key. [Disappointed]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
I won't hold my breath. But I thought I'd run the idea up the ship's mast. You never know who might be reading...

and it would be a good spiritual act...

and good PR.

(Whatever might prompt one to do such a thing!) [Biased]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
I hate to admit this, GK, but when I thought of "cool things the Pope could do with Phelps" , the unbidden image of his eyes glowing red as they blasted the Phelps clan into a flat patch of cinder flashed before my eyes. But I might have just subliminally picked up on the "X Files" in your sig.

I'm not being snarky, that really did happen. Which means I am a fucked- up person, but there ya go. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Farmer:


My only hope is that if there is a grand accounting some day for what we have done on earth, the clan will not be able to explain away all their calumny.

When Phelps and Co. pass into the Afterlife, they will walk into what looks like a huge summer picnic. A huge banner reading "Welcome Home, Phred!" will wave over the picnic table. Seated grinning at the table will be everybody Phelps ever picketed-- and Jesus.

"Corn on the cob, son?"
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Kelly--

[Overused] [Killing me]

And/or God will appear as a beautiful drag queen.


There's a story I've heard that goes something like this:

A man had a dream. He was at a dinner table with a beautifully-prepared meal and many other diners. But there was a problem: The forks (the only utensils) were several feet long. No one could feed themselves, and they were starving. The man realized he was in hell.

Then he found himself at a similar dinner table, with long utensils. But everyone was happy and eating...by feeding each other across the table. [Smile]

(I picked this up from the book "The Bean Trees", but I've heard it elsewhere. I think it's supposed to be a Latin-American tale.)


Re the pope and zapping: do we still have the Dalek pope on the front page of the ship? That might have influenced you. [Biased]
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Farmer:
I just checked Phred's website, and not only are they picketing the Pope in Washington and New York, they are picketing the funeral of four Nazarenes that were killed in an automobile accident in California. [Projectile] [Waterworks]

My only hope is that if there is a grand accounting some day for what we have done on earth, the clan will not be able to explain away all their calumny.

I think if they are a-okay with you, you should question your Christianity. They only seem to pick on the good people.
 
Posted by davelarge (# 186) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I hate to admit this, GK, but when I thought of "cool things the Pope could do with Phelps" , the unbidden image of his eyes glowing red as they blasted the Phelps clan into a flat patch of cinder flashed before my eyes.

And in a tangential way, this reminds me of a film set in hell (I can't remember it's title) where one of the incidental scenes shows Hitler and his eternal punishment. He has to spend all his time hunched on all-fours while a demon inserts a pineapple in his anus. Perhaps this would be a suitable ending for Phred?
 
Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by davelarge:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I hate to admit this, GK, but when I thought of "cool things the Pope could do with Phelps" , the unbidden image of his eyes glowing red as they blasted the Phelps clan into a flat patch of cinder flashed before my eyes.

And in a tangential way, this reminds me of a film set in hell (I can't remember it's title) where one of the incidental scenes shows Hitler and his eternal punishment. He has to spend all his time hunched on all-fours while a demon inserts a pineapple in his anus. Perhaps this would be a suitable ending for Phred?
That was Little Nicky.

The only problem with that idea is that I reckon Phelps would enjoy it.
 
Posted by GoodCatholicLad (# 9231) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by davelarge:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I hate to admit this, GK, but when I thought of "cool things the Pope could do with Phelps" , the unbidden image of his eyes glowing red as they blasted the Phelps clan into a flat patch of cinder flashed before my eyes.

And in a tangential way, this reminds me of a film set in hell (I can't remember it's title) where one of the incidental scenes shows Hitler and his eternal punishment. He has to spend all his time hunched on all-fours while a demon inserts a pineapple in his anus. Perhaps this would be a suitable ending for Phred?
I thought hell for Hitler would be a group of Hasidic rabbis dancing on his face singing Havah Nagila for all of eternity with the above demon doing the pineapple thang, leaf side down.
 
Posted by Frustrated Farmer (# 10782) on :
 
Apparently someone decided to set a fire early this morning to a garage that the family owns.


details at: cjonline.com
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Oh boy.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Arson seems to be a popular pastime in and around Lawrence. [Frown]
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
Direct link here. Picture gallery as well.

Interesting to see some of the Phelpses in nighties. Almost human.

[ETA: Interesting comments to the story on that site too.]

[ 03. August 2008, 01:11: Message edited by: Wesley J ]
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
I can't believe they were picketing their own garage fire!
[Eek!]
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
I can't believe they were picketing their own garage fire!
[Eek!]

Some comments are saying the fire was possibly started by a discarded cigarette. Thus, 'God hates fags'.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wesley J:
Some comments are saying the fire was possibly started by a discarded cigarette. Thus, 'God hates fags'.

[Killing me]
 
Posted by Annieoldiron (# 11967) on :
 
Hard to imagine this tribe could stoop any lower! They are planning to picket the funeral of a young man tragically beheaded on a bus in Manitoba
God may hate Canada, but what has the victim of a senseless tragedy got to do with them? I hope they rot long before they get to hell And I'm being polite, I'd like to see Canada offer them some free northwoods land, strip them, paint them with honey, tie them to a tree in bear country, The bears are looking for food to fatten up for hibernation right now!!
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
I wouldn't do that to the bears.
 
Posted by Annieoldiron (# 11967) on :
 
I would, after the pineapple treatment!! Bears are scavengers, like to feed on garbage, would prob find the Phelps gourmet!!
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
If Canada Customs is on the ball [Killing me] they may be turned away at the border. They probably don't know you need passports if you fly into Canada.
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
I thought the Phelpses were garbage?
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Could we please get Phelps to picket in Manitoba? Please, pretty please? I SOOOO want to acquaint him and his followers with Sections 176 and 319 of the Criminal Code. That is Obstructing Clergy or Disrupting a Religious Meeting, and Public Incitement of Hatred, respectively. Punishable upon summary conviction (up to two years less a day in jail).

He'll lose any protection of bullshit First Amendment arguments too the second he crosses the border. The Charter of Right and Freedoms has an explicit clause saying that all rights are subject to such limitations as are reasonable in a free and democratic society.

[Snigger] Hi Ho, Hi Ho, it's off to Jail we go...

[Devil]
 
Posted by Annieoldiron (# 11967) on :
 
I wonder if Canada Customs are aware of thie impending arrival? A few e-mails might help them to remember the law!! Like the idea on the use of the criminal code to put the scum where they belong. Won't be helping to raise bail for them!
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wesley J:
I thought the Phelpses were garbage?

No human being is garbage. Although I'll warrant the Phelpses tempt one to say so.
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
This is Hell, mate. Go play in Heaven.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wesley J:
This is Hell, mate. Go play in Heaven.

Sorry. A lie is a lie is a lie, even in Hell. Go play on the freeway.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
I SOOOO want to acquaint him and his followers with Sections 176 and 319 of the Criminal Code. That is Obstructing Clergy or Disrupting a Religious Meeting, and Public Incitement of Hatred, respectively. Punishable upon summary conviction (up to two years less a day in jail).

Much as I don't like the Phelps, I don't think I'd like to reactivate an archaic law that gives clergymen and their congregants special protections not granted to anyone else. That strikes me as something that shoulda gone the way of the blasphemy laws a long time ago.

I rememeber in New Brunswick back in the 80s, some traditionalist Catholics tried to go to a church and get communion on the tongue from a bishop who had announced he would not be administering it that way. The bishop actually tried to get them charged under that law. As I recall, the judge threw it out of court, and lambasted the bishop for trying to use the judiciary to resolve a religious dispute.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Are you smoking something? Section 176 is anything BUT archaic. It is written to apply to any religious body, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, or Rastafarian. It is one of the primary guarantees of religious freedom in Canada. I learned that from a top-flight Bay Street lawyer. It doesn't protect people from disagreement, it protects everyone from violence and hatred.
 
Posted by Annieoldiron (# 11967) on :
 
Is a funeral a public meeting? I'm not sure that it is being held in a church? I read somewhere that the family wanted a quiet , private funeral. I'm sure they wouldn't be inviting Mr Phelps and his Flakes!! Leaving aside the religious component, surely incitment of hatred would be a valid charge?
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Section 176

It applies not only to religious meetings, but to any social or benevolent meeting. It doesn't have to be public, there merely has to be an assembly. A funeral certainly meets the criteria. Doesn't have to be in a church.
 
Posted by The Blessed Pangolin (# 13623) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Could we please get Phelps to picket in Manitoba? Please, pretty please? I SOOOO want to acquaint him and his followers with Sections 176 and 319 of the Criminal Code. That is Obstructing Clergy or Disrupting a Religious Meeting, and Public Incitement of Hatred, respectively. Punishable upon summary conviction (up to two years less a day in jail).

He'll lose any protection of bullshit First Amendment arguments too the second he crosses the border. The Charter of Right and Freedoms has an explicit clause saying that all rights are subject to such limitations as are reasonable in a free and democratic society.

[Snigger] Hi Ho, Hi Ho, it's off to Jail we go...

[Devil]

Sadly, while whacko, they are cannier than that. Apparently, they are picketing a play this evening in Toronto (part of SummerWorks drama festival) entitled something like Pastor Phelps: A Fundamentalist Cabaret, but have said that they won't have "God Hates Fags" placards because they know that would leave them open to criminal prosecution here. Bugger. Or, rather, I'd like to see them buggered in Kingston Pen.

They inspire even less Christian thoughts in me than that. They really, really do. For that reason, they are obviously servants of the Dark One.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
[Snigger]

He's picketing a cabaret held in his honour? C'mon, give him a free ticket. Since money is being made from his reputation, it's only fair to give him a seat. Preferably up front so he doesn't miss the message, and the rest of the audience can stare at him. If he remains silent for that long, which he won't.
 
Posted by Prosfonesis (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Thoughtlessly posted by The Blessed Pangolin:
Or, rather, I'd like to see them buggered in Kingston Pen.

I share your dislike of Phred Phelps and his spawn, but must you use the horror of prison rape to make your point?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
If Canada Customs is on the ball [Killing me] they may be turned away at the border. They probably don't know you need passports if you fly into Canada.

IIRC, now you need one to re-enter the US. So even if Canada Customs slips up, US Customs might not let them back in!
[Two face]
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Prosfonesis:
quote:
Thoughtlessly posted by The Blessed Pangolin:
Or, rather, I'd like to see them buggered in Kingston Pen.

I share your dislike of Phred Phelps and his spawn, but must you use the horror of prison rape to make your point?
We can skip that part. Kingston Penitentiary was constructed in 1835. It looks like a prison. It feels like a prison. It does allows prisoners to have televisions, but that's better then the illicit drugs that get thrown in from the outside, or smuggled into the place in various orifices.

Though for a Summary Conviction, Phelps would be in provincial custody. For Toronto, that would mean a stay in the in the Lindsay Jail.
 
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Wesley J:
I thought the Phelpses were garbage?

No human being is garbage. Although I'll warrant the Phelpses tempt one to say so.
They do tempt one to a certain nostalgia for the burning of heretics... Get thee behind me...
 
Posted by Petrified (# 10667) on :
 
I see from his site that they are planning to picket the Olympic Stadium in China - that should be interesting.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
Sober Preachers Kid wrote:

quote:
Are you smoking something? Section 176 is anything BUT archaic. It is written to apply to any religious body, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, or Rastafarian. It is one of the primary guarantees of religious freedom in Canada.
We have was against trespassing in Canada. If I go into a church, mosque or rastafarian whatever and start shouting slogans against the faith, I can be charged with trespassing as soon as I refuse any request to leave.

Therefore, I do not see why we need a special law about religious(or benevolent) meetings, UNLESS its intended to prosecute people who have not actually gone onto church property, or maybe to pile on extra charges over and above trespassing. Either way, it sounds pretty dubious to me.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Sober Preachers Kid wrote:

quote:
Are you smoking something? Section 176 is anything BUT archaic. It is written to apply to any religious body, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, or Rastafarian. It is one of the primary guarantees of religious freedom in Canada.
We have laws against trespassing in Canada. If I go into a church, mosque or rastafarian whatever and start shouting slogans against the faith, I can be charged with trespassing as soon as I refuse any request to leave.

Therefore, I do not see why we need a special law about religious(or benevolent) meetings, UNLESS its intended to prosecute people who have not actually gone onto church property, or maybe to pile on extra charges over and above trespassing. Either way, it sounds pretty dubious to me.


 
Posted by Annieoldiron (# 11967) on :
 
Controversial U.S. church group stopped at Border

Residents rallied Thursday to protect the family of a young man murdered on a Greyhound bus last week from a posse of radical religious protesters planning to portray Tim McLean's death as God's wrath.
Good news. The local citizenry got wind of their plans, and organised a protest rally thru' FaceBook, and bombarded the PM's office and the local mayor with protests. For once Immigration was on the ball, and gave them the boot when they tried to get in. Shirley says they will be back to try at another crossing, and will make it this time, as they will not have banners, and the Officers will have to strip search them to find the slogans tatooed on their butts. Gross thought, shows where their intelligence is kept!!

I think they would have met some ugly opposition had they tried anything, The cops are planning a presence should they show up. Wonder if they would consider picketing a Mob funeral, or one for the Hells Angels? Likely not, need cojones for that kind of challenge, and that's something they don't seem to have, except maybe Shirley!!
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Wesley J:
I thought the Phelpses were garbage?

No human being is garbage. Although I'll warrant the Phelpses tempt one to say so.
They do tempt one to a certain nostalgia for the burning of heretics... Get thee behind me...
May I humbly point to my latest suggestion on the matter? Thank you. [Snigger]
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Wonder if they would consider picketing a Mob funeral, or one for the Hells Angels?
Yeah, I think they pretty much stopped picketting US miltary funerals afer that law was passed against doing so.
 
Posted by The Blessed Pangolin (# 13623) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Prosfonesis:
quote:
Thoughtlessly posted by The Blessed Pangolin:
Or, rather, I'd like to see them buggered in Kingston Pen.

I share your dislike of Phred Phelps and his spawn, but must you use the horror of prison rape to make your point?
As I also said in the post, they make me think very unchristian things. They so anger me that they cause me to take leave of my otherwise reasonable nature. I was being honest, not admirable.
 
Posted by The Blessed Pangolin (# 13623) on :
 
Missed the edit window (damn opening ceremonies!)...

Phelps et al. have consciously, deliberately, caused so much anguish that I feel little guilt in my ill will. Call me stubborn in my sin, but I think that my post demonstrates the effect that they have as force of evil.
 
Posted by Prosfonesis (# 1158) on :
 
I'll take that for a, Yes. It's deplorable, really.

So, they are just words to you: "buggered in Kingston Pen," and not very potent ones.

Please take a moment to read a little bit more about prison rape, from just one of these three sources, according to your available time and inclination: Stop Prison Rape, Wikipedia, or this New York Times article.
 
Posted by marsupial. (# 12458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
We have was against trespassing in Canada. If I go into a church, mosque or rastafarian whatever and start shouting slogans against the faith, I can be charged with trespassing as soon as I refuse any request to leave.

The downside of course is that they would actually have to make a request to leave, there would already have been a disruption etc.

I don't know anything about the history of s.176(2), whether it's used very often these days, or even whether the courts have had anything to say about its constitutionality. It does have an intent requirement ("wilfully") which ups the ante a bit in terms of what the prosecution has to prove.

The hate speech law (s. 319(2)) was narrowly upheld by the Supreme Court when it was challenged in the early days on the Charter. The consequence is that it is interpreted somewhat restrictively.

[ 08. August 2008, 18:21: Message edited by: marsupial. ]
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
Marsupial wrote:

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
We have was against trespassing in Canada. If I go into a church, mosque or rastafarian whatever and start shouting slogans against the faith, I can be charged with trespassing as soon as I refuse any request to leave.

The downside of course is that they would actually have to make a request to leave, there would already have been a disruption etc.

I take your point about the trespassing laws being unable to stop the original disruption. I guess for me the question then becomes why religious groups are getting privileges not given to anyone else.

If I walk into a meeting of the Conservative Party Of Canada and start screaming about how everyone there is a bunch of homophobic asshole freaks, I can be asked to leave, and charged with trespasssing if I don't. It's unfortunate for the Tories that no law exists to prevent the original disruption, but oh well. We're all kind of expected to live with these little annoyances.

But if I walk into a Pentecoastal service and do the same thing, suddenly there is a whole new set of laws that can be tossed at me, over and above trespassing? Simply because the Pentecostals claim to do what they do in the name of God, as opposed to the Tories who do it in the name of politics? I dunno, seems like a fairly arbitrary distinction to be making.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
So, they are just words to you: "buggered in Kingston Pen," and not very potent ones.

I think the point for me is that these kinds of jokes are offensive not to the Reverend Phelps, but to people who suffer real-life prison rape.
 
Posted by Annieoldiron (# 11967) on :
 
They're back in! Made it through another Border point, without any prob it seems. There will be 200+ gathered in Winnipeg to prevent them from caryying out their nastiness, Strange to relate, I crossed back from the USA yesterday, and had to produce ID and receipts for the $34.00 I had spent while away. I'm a scooter riding senior don't pack any hate banners, guess they were being very thoro' About time they stopped using immigration Officers as tax-collectors it seems! Then they could concentrate on protecting Canada from Phelps -idiots, who had already announced their intention of using another route!
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I take your point about the trespassing laws being unable to stop the original disruption. I guess for me the question then becomes why religious groups are getting privileges not given to anyone else.
...
But if I walk into a Pentecoastal service and do the same thing, suddenly there is a whole new set of laws that can be tossed at me, over and above trespassing? Simply because the Pentecostals claim to do what they do in the name of God, as opposed to the Tories who do it in the name of politics? I dunno, seems like a fairly arbitrary distinction to be making.

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Section 176

It applies not only to religious meetings, but to any social or benevolent meeting. It doesn't have to be public, there merely has to be an assembly. A funeral certainly meets the criteria. Doesn't have to be in a church.

Does that help? Or are you saying the Tories are neither social nor benevolent? [Devil] OliviaG
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Annieoldiron:
They're back in! Made it through another Border point, without any prob it seems.

Aha! You're stuck with them! We ain't letting them back! Do you know if Phred himself was with the group? Maybe the lot will spend a couple of years behind bars.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Does that help? Or are you saying the Tories are neither social nor benevolent?
Heh heh. But seriously, I'd be very curious to know how the courts would define "social or benevolent" for the purposes of enforcing this law.

[ 08. August 2008, 20:01: Message edited by: Stetson ]
 
Posted by Annieoldiron (# 11967) on :
 
Relax Gort, the time for rejoicing is not yet. You'll have them back, Canada can produce it's own azzholes by the bushel without help Seems that Shirley doesn't like the sound of Canadian pokeys. Just copied this from the CTV.ca website

[DELETED]

I undestand there will be 200 + people turning out in Winnipeg, to block the protest, so we'll see what happens there. The mood here is very angry, as you can imagine. I wonder if the Couriers realize there is a law against importing hate literature into Canada Think I'll e-mail a few.

[Deleted large quote of potentially copyright material.]

[ 08. August 2008, 21:14: Message edited by: RooK ]
 
Posted by Annieoldiron (# 11967) on :
 
Change of tune maybe?

[DELETED]

Maybe they could get Fed-ex to ship in a few cojones along with the hate signs. Seems the bullies have met some-one bigger than themselves!! Sorry the red carpet they were expecting has better uses on Saturday!!

[Deleted more copyright-questionable material.]

[ 08. August 2008, 21:23: Message edited by: RooK ]
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
[HELLHOST]

Annieoldiron, please refrain from pasting in large chunks of text that aren't yours or the Ship's - per commandment 7. Instead, try using a link.

-RooK

[/HELLHOST]
 
Posted by Annieoldiron (# 11967) on :
 
Apologies Rook Annie
 
Posted by marsupial. (# 12458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Heh heh. But seriously, I'd be very curious to know how the courts would define "social or benevolent" for the purposes of enforcing this law.

There's a very old case from 1902 that holds that the section "was not intended for the preservation of order at political or municipal meetings." It was cited without further comment in the SCC case that dealt with charges against the Roman Catholic parishioners you mentioned above.

The section itself seems to be very old, dating at least from the 1892 Code. Personally, I'd be a bit surprised if it were included in an attempt to recodify the criminal law from scratch. That said, it doesn't seem to be doing much harm, in terms of taking away rights that individuals would otherwise have but for the existence of the section.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
I can think of a good number of sections that wouldn't make the cut in a new Criminal Code. Honestly, some of the sections are hilarious just for the fact that somebody bothered to make this a crime. Or its deadly serious but silly at the same time.

Section 49 - Prohibited Acts. From what I can tell, if you alarm the Queen such that she throws her handbag, you get 14 years in prison.

Sections 46(1) and 46(2) - High Treason and Treason; they are not the same thing. The first is antique and lifted directly from English law, the second is more 'real'.

Section 67 - The Riot Act Proclamation, in all its glory. This had been repealed in the UK, but is still in force in Canada. Silly to hear, serious in its consequences.

Section 70 - Unlawful Drilling. Our very own law against forming your own 'People's Militia'.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
So we need to get the Queen to throw her handbag at Fred Phelps?
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Yes, and he can't have a Petition of Grievance in his hand. Who said the law is serious?
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
I note (above, in this thread0 that the US has a law against disrupting a military funeral, enacted largely because of the activities of the Phelpses.

I also note there is disquiet among some because Canada has laws that might reduce the aggravation caused by the Phelpses.

Can't have it both ways guys. Would you rather have unfettered Phelpsness running amok, or would you be OK with families having uninterrupted funerals? (Note that a funeral isn't necesarily an "organised religion" thing)

If even the Land of the Free can legislate some limits on "free speech", then maybe the rest of us can too.

Tangentially, I've never understood why people who get right in your face to make a statement of their opinion are almost always so upset if you venture a differing opinion back. Does free speech only belong to the noisy and demanding?
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
If even the Land of the Free can legislate some limits on "free speech", then maybe the rest of us can too.

Well, you can count me as someone who strongly disapproves of the law against picketting funerals, insofar as that law can be used against people who aren't actually on the property where the funeral is being held.

Why should military funerals be sacrosanct? Why was there no law passed when Fred was picketting HIV-victims funerals?

quote:
I also note there is disquiet among some because Canada has laws that might reduce the aggravation caused by the Phelpses.

My disquiet is caused by Canada having laws that declare certain types of meetings, including those related to religion, as deserving special protections not granted to other sorts of meetings. And also that people want to legitimize these laws by invoking them against Phelps.

[ 09. August 2008, 18:11: Message edited by: Stetson ]
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
Well, since this IS Hell, I'll just have to leave you to be disquieted, then.

I don't see why you feel the need for unfettered picketing at funerals, but, hey, have a good time!
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
I don't see why you feel the need for unfettered picketing at funerals, but, hey, have a good time!

So, if I'm against a law banning a particular activity, that means I "feel a need" for that activity?
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
All societies, as opposed to individuals, have some sort of limit on what one can do in public. Why is it so grievous to you that there should be a law against disturbing people at a time when they are preoccupied and vulnerable?

Especially when the only reason to disturb them is just to ride a hobby-horse that has nothing to do with the event, or the people involved.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Because the Freedom of Religion has been enshrined in the Charter of Rights under its own heading, and long before that Religion received numerous special considerations, which continue to this day? When one is attending to the divine one ought to be left alone. It does go beyond mere inconvenience.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
All societies, as opposed to individuals, have some sort of limit on what one can do in public. Why is it so grievous to you that there should be a law against disturbing people at a time when they are preoccupied and vulnerable?

Because it legitimizes what I regard as a bad law. The fact that the law might have good consequences in one particular case(ie. by preventing these guys from picketting a funeral)does not negate the overall badness of a law which says rhat a church(among other things) should get protections denied to most other types of gwethering place.

If you think this law is such a great thing, do you think that the Queer Nation activists who were picketting Catholic ordinations a few years back should have been charged under it? What about the anti-scientology flash mobs that were protesting in front of Dianetics centres earlier this year?
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
When one is attending to the divine one ought to be left alone.
So if a clergyman is known for giving sermons about how homosexuality is immoral, gay activists should not picket his services, because anyone who is attending to the divine has an inalienable right to be left alone?

[ 10. August 2008, 07:51: Message edited by: Stetson ]
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Yes. The protesters can make alternate arrangements.
 
Posted by davelarge (# 186) on :
 
I live in Winnipeg, but unfortunately was out of town this weekend. I would have been at the funeral as part of the human wall, if I had been at home.

The Phelps' truly disgust me. They deserve to be soundly ridiculed for their hateful, bile-filled rhetoric.

Gah. [Mad]
 
Posted by marsupial. (# 12458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
When one is attending to the divine one ought to be left alone.
So if a clergyman is known for giving sermons about how homosexuality is immoral, gay activists should not picket his services, because anyone who is attending to the divine has an inalienable right to be left alone?
I don't want to speculate about the exact bounds of s. 176 here, but clearly there's an issue here as to what the law covers and what it doesn't. Just as with the hate speech laws, there are freedom of speech issues here that are going to enter into the balance when a court decides what s. 176 ought to cover (assuming it is constitutional in the first place) and what not.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Yes. The protesters can make alternate arrangements.

But I have, numerous times, heard clergymen speak out against this or that alleged sociopolitical evil. If a Catholic priest doesn't like having communists(for example) picketting outside his church, maybe he should lay off the sermons explicating on the Blessed Virgin's denunciation of Communism at Fatima? Isn't he kind of setting himself up as a legitimate target for protestors by engaging in such speech in the first place?
 
Posted by fatpanda (# 2709) on :
 
Wrong thread .....

I've really been enjoying the Swimming at the Olympics ...... [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
That's the issue that Stetson doesn't want to answer.

It may be arguable that priests/ministers/imams/leaders should have to accept some form of heckling or disagreement if they use their pulpits(?whatever) to issue racist or other hateful thoughts, although I would tend to think that "religious" services should not be interrupted. A strong public statement of disagreement should be allowed as "free speech", if necessary.

But why should a funeral for a truly innocent victim be allowed to become a political-agenda parade? Why is hate speech in need of protection in this case?

Not to mention: why is hate speech necessary at all? It is possible to express disagreement without being hateful, and it is necessary to express disagreement without being hateful if you are actually a Christian or Muslim or Buddhist or Jew or just about any other flavour.

The reason we have laws limiting speech is exactly that: there is no need to express hatred at any time. Even an atheist will tell you that.

So why should we protect hate speech at all? (I guess I'll start a Purg thread)

[ 10. August 2008, 23:38: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
But why should a funeral for a truly innocent victim be allowed to become a political-agenda parade? Why is hate speech in need of protection in this case?

Because, as I said before, I don't think a bad law should be legitimized through enforcement. I could phrase the argument this way...

There are two questions I could ask about this issue:

1. Do I favour that s.176 should be on the books?

2. Do I think that s.176 should be used against Phelps?

Now, my answer to the first question is "no", for reasons I have outlined elsewhere in this discussion. And, having answered "no" to the first question, I don't see how it would be ethically consistent for me to answer "yes" to the second.

And yeah, the idea of picketting funerals makes even a guy like me question the wisdom of holding fast to the liberal orthodoxy on speech issues. However, upon consideration, it seems to me unlikely that this law would stop Phelps from inclting emotional misery in one way or another.

It's pretty clear that the whole point of the Westboro group is to make themselves hated by disrupting the most solemn events imaginable. Now, if they're hellbent on doing that in Canada, I don't think that they're gonna be deterred by the fact that they can't legally disrupt funerals. They would likely just find another equally sacred target that it would be legal for them to go after. For example, they could go to cancer hospitals and carry around signs saying YOU'RE ALL GOING TO HELL CHEMO-FREAKS!! on the front sidewalk. I suppose someone would try to argue that medical facilities are covered by s.176's "bevevolent groups", but do we really want to be adding a huge sector of the economy to the list of places that it is illegal to picket? Even if we did do that, I don't think that Fred Phelps Esq. would have much difficulty coming up with numerous methods of hitting people in their most vulnerable moments, all legal under Canadian law. I can think of about half a dozen off the top of my head, though I shall refrain from posting them here.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
So why should we protect hate speech at all? (I guess I'll start a Purg thread)

I gae my personal answer at extreme length on that thread...
 
Posted by Holy Moley (# 8924) on :
 
Bah, I thought this thread was a discussion about that swimmer chap who won all the medals.
 
Posted by AndyS83 (# 14011) on :
 
Has anyone visited the website God hates Shrimp?

http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/

Leviticus 11:10 states:

"And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you"

classic..
 
Posted by Paddy O'Furniture (# 12953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Moley:
Bah, I thought this thread was a discussion about that swimmer chap who won all the medals.

This being a Hell thread didn't tip you off that this wasn't about the swimmer?!
 
Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
[Roll Eyes]

Psddy, do please go away. You're giving Hell a bad name.
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
Bunnies lambasting each other. Next, we'll have rubber chickens at 20 paces. May a thousand blood-thirsty parasites feast upon your furry privates.
 
Posted by Paddy O'Furniture (# 12953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jlg:
[Roll Eyes]

Psddy, do please go away. You're giving Hell a bad name.

I wasn't talking to you so why the hell don't you shut your pie-hole?
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
Well, it's like this, Spikey: you post here, you paint a great ringed, dayglow sphincter upon your forehead that all can take pot-shots at. The last thing you want to do is whine about others target practice. If out of your league, best to deflect sarky comments with self-effacing rhetorical posts implying your antagonist has missed the mark. Otherwise you simply confirm their criticism. If you haven't the wit or wherewithal to compose a suitably witty response, simply ignore them. [Zwingli is a good example of this tactic]

I know it's difficult for a nice person like you to accept - but there are mean people like jlg just waiting to take advantage of your basic good nature in order to make themselves look clever or tough. Try finding some personal attribute [short, old, anglican...bald ] that may be sensitive and withwhich you can compose a blistering rebuttal.

Meanwhile, go polish your Hummels.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Ouch.
 
Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
Oh look! Paddy has adopted a new tough-looking avatar! Oh dear, now I'm scared of her.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
Try finding some personal attribute [short, old, anglican...bald ] that may be sensitive and withwhich you can compose a blistering rebuttal.

HEY! Jennifer is not Anglican!

quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
Meanwhile, go polish your Hummels.

okay, serious moment... what does that mean? and tell me it's something really, really insulting because I'm dealing with some class-A sleazebag, seeping ass-wound-faced nipple pimples with Hummel as a surname.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
Comet - do you mean to tell us that your home is totally without these tasteful ceramic products?
(aka Reasons to Own a Hammer)

[ 16. August 2008, 21:39: Message edited by: Firenze ]
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
that's a Hummel?

bummer.

though I'd agree with the reason to own a big hammer identification. the Hummels I know fit that description. but "cute" or even "sickeningly sweet" would not qualify. closer would be "inbred" "freakish" "unwashed since the Truman administration" and "stalkeresque".

and no, I have nothing like that in my home. but then, I lack the "cute and cuddly" gene myself.

[ 16. August 2008, 21:51: Message edited by: comet ]
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Paddy O'Furniture:
I wasn't talking to you so why the hell don't you shut your pie-hole?

I wouldn't mess with jlg. It hasn't been that long since I learned the following:

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight: I'd steer clear of jlg though, the old battle ax beats groundhogs with shovels.
quote:
Originally posted by jlg: Actually, it was a baby groundhog.
quote:
Originally posted by Comet: and she made its mommy watch.

 
Posted by Campbellite (# 1202) on :
 
Ah yes, Organ Builder. I remember that exchange.

Oh, how we laughed.
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
...and no, I have nothing like that in my home. but then, I lack the "cute and cuddly" gene myself.

Oh, sure you do. How else could one acquire those pinchable cheeks and bubbling magnanimous equanimity?
 
Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
Organ Builder has obviously never messed with a groundhog, baby or adult.
 
Posted by Paddy O'Furniture (# 12953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
Well, it's like this, Spikey: you post here, you paint a great ringed, dayglow sphincter upon your forehead that all can take pot-shots at. The last thing you want to do is whine about others target practice. If out of your league, best to deflect sarky comments with self-effacing rhetorical posts implying your antagonist has missed the mark. Otherwise you simply confirm their criticism. If you haven't the wit or wherewithal to compose a suitably witty response, simply ignore them. [Zwingli is a good example of this tactic]

I know it's difficult for a nice person like you to accept - but there are mean people like jlg just waiting to take advantage of your basic good nature in order to make themselves look clever or tough. Try finding some personal attribute [short, old, anglican...bald ] that may be sensitive and withwhich you can compose a blistering rebuttal.

Meanwhile, go polish your Hummels.

Actually, I think I'll polish my gun collection.
 
Posted by Paddy O'Furniture (# 12953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
quote:
Originally posted by Paddy O'Furniture:
I wasn't talking to you so why the hell don't you shut your pie-hole?

I wouldn't mess with jlg. It hasn't been that long since I learned the following:

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight: I'd steer clear of jlg though, the old battle ax beats groundhogs with shovels.
quote:
Originally posted by jlg: Actually, it was a baby groundhog.
quote:
Originally posted by Comet: and she made its mommy watch.

Thanks. Some of the broads on this thread are either going through menopause or haven't had sex since the Truman presidency, poor things. I'll try to keep that in mind.
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jlg:
Organ Builder has obviously never messed with a groundhog, baby or adult.

Actually, I have. I hit one with the car once. It left a dent.

That was in Maryland, where groundhogs are the size of a medium dog. We have NOTHING that large in Georgia. It was larger than a 'possom or raccoon.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
RooK and Teuf are going to gnaw on my various cuter bits for continuing this trainwreck, but my inner bitch-mentor just won't let this pass. sorry fellas.
quote:
Originally posted by Paddy O'Furniture:
Actually, I think I'll polish my gun collection.

Paddy - this is exactly the kind of thing RooK was talking about in the other thread. this lacks any sort of class or subtlety or "betterthanyew" ethos, and therefore is just laughable as far as Hell rebuttals go.

Seriously, this sounds like a half-hearted attempt at "tough" cred. like those boys who talk about sex all the time - the more they talk about sex, the less they've ever experienced.

Am I right?

those of us who have ballistics and a variety of sharp objects in the home seldom feel the need to discuss them. So, by saying you're polishing your gun collection, you're in essence telling the denizens that you're about as rough and tough as a preschool teacher's aide.

who wears pink.

ribbons.

with teddy bears on them.

[Disappointed]

basic rules of Hell -

1) aloofness beats snarkiness 9 times out of ten. the best response to an asshole in Hell is no response at all. ("oh, were you talking to me? HAahaha! I thought you were just gibbering to yourself and your little friends...")

2) the tenth time, it is best to appear to be talking over the head of the other person, so as to maintain the aloofness schtick.

3) keep all anger to yourself and your computer desk. dont post until you can sound like you really couldn't care less what the other denizens think.

4) if you really want to sound intimidating, use lots of syllables. make some up, even. and write long text-dense posts about how the other person is wrong because, according to the 12th century philosopher Logorrheus, the synergy of the creation myth with the story of the 3-legged giraffe of Luxembourg means that anyone arguing the outdated theology of Cartouche's Brioche is obviously compensating for the innate miniscule size of their rhinocephalon and couldn't truly tell their adventita from a hole in the ground.

then, even if you dont know what you're talking about none of us will argue because we will have fallen into a coma by your third sentence.

Seriously, there is an art to this place. get your undies out of a knot and you might learn something... and have some fun, eventually. because despite what RooK said on the other thread, I was teasing you, in a har-har-aren't-we-buds kind of way. your response shows a complete lack of Hellish Cool. You can overcome this, I promise.

let your Inner Bitch have a voice, darling.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Gun collections are like Japanese body tattoos. They are assembled over a lifetime, and are a physical expression of a person's inner self. As it is so personal, it isn't casually shown in public.

Both a body tattoo and a gun collection are meant to be exposed once in a deep expression inner beauty to someone who truly appreciates it.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Both a body tattoo and a gun collection are meant to be exposed once in a deep expression inner beauty to someone who truly appreciates it.

By gum, mating habits in the Far North are even weirder than previously thought.
 
Posted by Paddy O'Furniture (# 12953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
RooK and Teuf are going to gnaw on my various cuter bits for continuing this trainwreck, but my inner bitch-mentor just won't let this pass. sorry fellas.
quote:
Originally posted by Paddy O'Furniture:
Actually, I think I'll polish my gun collection.

Paddy - this is exactly the kind of thing RooK was talking about in the other thread. this lacks any sort of class or subtlety or "betterthanyew" ethos, and therefore is just laughable as far as Hell rebuttals go.

Seriously, this sounds like a half-hearted attempt at "tough" cred. like those boys who talk about sex all the time - the more they talk about sex, the less they've ever experienced.

Am I right?

those of us who have ballistics and a variety of sharp objects in the home seldom feel the need to discuss them. So, by saying you're polishing your gun collection, you're in essence telling the denizens that you're about as rough and tough as a preschool teacher's aide.

who wears pink.

ribbons.

with teddy bears on them.

[Disappointed]

basic rules of Hell -

1) aloofness beats snarkiness 9 times out of ten. the best response to an asshole in Hell is no response at all. ("oh, were you talking to me? HAahaha! I thought you were just gibbering to yourself and your little friends...")

2) the tenth time, it is best to appear to be talking over the head of the other person, so as to maintain the aloofness schtick.

3) keep all anger to yourself and your computer desk. dont post until you can sound like you really couldn't care less what the other denizens think.

4) if you really want to sound intimidating, use lots of syllables. make some up, even. and write long text-dense posts about how the other person is wrong because, according to the 12th century philosopher Logorrheus, the synergy of the creation myth with the story of the 3-legged giraffe of Luxembourg means that anyone arguing the outdated theology of Cartouche's Brioche is obviously compensating for the innate miniscule size of their rhinocephalon and couldn't truly tell their adventita from a hole in the ground.

then, even if you dont know what you're talking about none of us will argue because we will have fallen into a coma by your third sentence.

Seriously, there is an art to this place. get your undies out of a knot and you might learn something... and have some fun, eventually. because despite what RooK said on the other thread, I was teasing you, in a har-har-aren't-we-buds kind of way. your response shows a complete lack of Hellish Cool. You can overcome this, I promise.

let your Inner Bitch have a voice, darling.

You're right. I apologize to all and sundry. I found to my dismay that my blood sugar was quite a bit higher than it was supposed to be and I was very ill without realizing it. I'm not a bobblehead as much as a bubblehead when it comes to this stupid %#$%@! goddamn diabetes.
 
Posted by Paddy O'Furniture (# 12953) on :
 
This is in no way an appeal to all of you for sympathy because I know better. I am prepared for all the snotty things you will say about how dumb I am, how immature, how pedestrian my thoughts on any subject are, how lame I am, how boring, saccharine, moronic, etc, etc. Have I covered all the insults? I'm sure I haven't. I'm certain you will tell me what I've missed.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Both a body tattoo and a gun collection are meant to be exposed once in a deep expression inner beauty to someone who truly appreciates it.

By gum, mating habits in the Far North are even weirder than previously thought.
Actually I live a considerable ways south of you. Peterborough is at 44 degrees North Latitude, and Edinburgh is at 54 degrees North Latitude.
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
4) if you really want to sound intimidating, use lots of syllables. make some up, even. and write long text-dense posts about how the other person is wrong because, according to the 12th century philosopher Logorrheus, the synergy of the creation myth with the story of the 3-legged giraffe of Luxembourg means that anyone arguing the outdated theology of Cartouche's Brioche is obviously compensating for the innate miniscule size of their rhinocephalon and couldn't truly tell their adventita from a hole in the ground.

then, even if you dont know what you're talking about none of us will argue because we will have fallen into a coma by your third sentence.

I had to check--for a moment I thought you were describing Purgatory.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Both a body tattoo and a gun collection are meant to be exposed once in a deep expression inner beauty to someone who truly appreciates it.

By gum, mating habits in the Far North are even weirder than previously thought.
Actually I live a considerable ways south of you. Peterborough is at 44 degrees North Latitude, and Edinburgh is at 54 degrees North Latitude.
By gum, mating habits in the Deep South are even weirder than previously thought.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
No, no, my dear. The Deep South refers to the US States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. I live in the Great Lakes Region, in particular Southern Ontario or Upper Canada.

[Disappointed] The Scottish school system seems to be slipping.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
As far as I am concerned, you are all effete southerners (along with people from Yorkshire).

OK, there are people to the south of you, but that is irrelevant.

And my education owes nothing to Scottish schools: my original and independent habit of thought (in contradistinction to yours, which seems pitiably in thrall to convention) was forged in other fires.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
Latitude 62.

and alas, our mating rituals often do include tattoos and guns.

unlike you effete southerners down there at 54.

[Razz]
 
Posted by Campbellite (# 1202) on :
 
But we have sunlight in the winter, so there. [Razz]
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
Personally, I would like to see sunlight in summer.

(It's not all waving palms and the cicadas calling at noon down here you know).

[ 18. August 2008, 08:18: Message edited by: Firenze ]
 
Posted by The Blessed Pangolin (# 13623) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by comet:

and alas, our mating rituals often do include tattoos and guns.

Often as possible, in my case.
 
Posted by HenryT (# 3722) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
Latitude 62.

and alas, our mating rituals often do include tattoos and guns.

I thought it was blue tarps and duct tape?
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by HenryT:
I thought it was blue tarps and duct tape?

I thought that was Homeland Security.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
You can't beat the romance of a dead furry critter. A relative of mine went on a hunting-moon.

Nothing reaffirms your manliness like killing and butchering a deer. Though nothing beats the taste of bear.

Mmmm, bear. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
There are probably bears out there who think: Mmmm, nothing beats the taste of fresh honeymooners.

(Note for anyone scouring this thread for Tips to Successful Seduction: stiffening pile of fur, draggled in blood, once-liquid eyes glazed, tongue lolling from foam-flecked jaws - no. Venison medallion in cream sauce beside a glass of Côte Rôtie - possibly).
 
Posted by Paddy O'Furniture (# 12953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Maybe if a bunch of people were recruited to hit on Phelps and his wife whenever they're out picketing, they might be put off it a bit. [Snigger]

It would be funny, but I wouldn't recommend it.

IIRC, Matthew Shephard's murder was triggered by hitting on (?) a straight man in a bar. I'm NOT in any way, shape, or form blaming Matthew. Just saying that the proposed action could be very dangerous.

And I suspect that Fred is mentally ill, deeply closeted, possibly an abuse survivor, or some combination of the three. If someone pushed his buttons by hitting on him...
[Eek!]

Phelps is one ugly bastard. Who in their right mind would even make a pass at the old coot? He's an ugly, ugly man, both physically and spiritually. I don't believe in a fallen angel that people call Satan but certain humans are incredibly evil and are devilish. Fred Phelps, take a bow.
 
Posted by bonabri (# 304) on :
 
But who would have thought that he could swim so well?
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Though nothing beats the taste of bear.

Mmmm, bear. [Big Grin]

Dead, or alive?
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Dead. Game must be throughly cooked in order to prevent Trichinosis.
 
Posted by Frustrated Farmer (# 10782) on :
 
According to the local paper, while the fire department has not made an official determination of the cause of the fire at Phred's compound, one of his children is sure that it was set intentionally. [Roll Eyes]

Once again I had the joy of seeing the clan out picketing on my way into church today.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Farmer:
According to the local paper, while the fire department has not made an official determination of the cause of the fire at Phred's compound, one of his children is sure that it was set intentionally. [Roll Eyes]

How sure? Irrefutable evidence? Gosh they are disgusting; they make Mrs Iris Robinson look enlightened and reasonable.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Farmer:
According to the local paper, while the fire department has not made an official determination of the cause of the fire at Phred's compound, one of his children is sure that it was set intentionally. [Roll Eyes]

Once again I had the joy of seeing the clan out picketing on my way into church today.

Farmer, we appreciate your role on the front lines, so to speak. you make a great SoF "scout" for Phelpsian stuff.

you poor thing.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Dear Lord! Having to share a town with the Phelps Clan? You and neighbours must be models of patience to have to live with that circus.
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Dear Lord! Having to share a town with the Phelps Klan? You and neighbours must be models of patience to have to live with that circus.

Please note the minor change in spelling which is bolded.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Yes, I thought about that jibe but didn't go for it. That'll teach me to pull my punches.
 
Posted by Frustrated Farmer (# 10782) on :
 
Thanks Comet [Yipee]

The fire department did rule this week that Phred's fire was arson.

At one time the clan had the telephone number for many of the fax machines in town. They would send out information on their picketing schedule for the week and also who they considered bound for hell for being a f** enabler. Mrs. Farmer would bring some of them home from work to share with me. [Projectile]
 
Posted by Frustrated Farmer (# 10782) on :
 
An article today in the local paper about the clans court case in Nebraska, I believe the subject is flag desecration.

I am not skilled in posting links, however going to www.cjonline.com and looking for the story about Phelps-Roper on the left hand side should get you there.
 
Posted by Low Treason (# 11924) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Farmer:
An article today in the local paper about the clans court case in Nebraska, I believe the subject is flag desecration.

I am not skilled in posting links, however going to www.cjonline.com and looking for the story about Phelps-Roper on the left hand side should get you there.

This should do it
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Farmer:
... court case in Nebraska, I believe the subject is flag desecration.
...

Desecrating the flag is a crime over there? [Killing me] It's a good job it isn't in the UK, especially given that said desecration seems to involve having a kid stand on it and a woman wear it as 'a skirt that dragged on the ground'.
What a difference The Pond makes.

Still, the more inconvenience that can be caused to them, the less of their time they can spend ranting at bereaved and vulnerable families.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
must be a state thing, because it's not a crime here. [Confused]
 
Posted by Frustrated Farmer (# 10782) on :
 
The clan was busy picketing on the corner across from the church this evening when I went in for services. [Disappointed]

There is a report out that a record label is after the clan for unauthorized use of one of their songs.
 
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Farmer:
The clan was busy picketing on the corner across from the church this evening when I went in for services. [Disappointed]

There is a report out that a record label is after the clan for unauthorized use of one of their songs.

[Confused] I'd be interested to know what the song was - All You Need Is Love perhaps?
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Farmer:
The clan was busy picketing on the corner across from the church this evening when I went in for services. [Disappointed]

There is a report out that a record label is after the clan for unauthorized use of one of their songs.

[Confused] I'd be interested to know what the song was - All You Need Is Love perhaps?
There clearly used to be a link to it in this post, but the video's been removed because of the copyright claim, and I can't remember what the song was. I think I clicked on the link and watched it and was left with a [Projectile] feeling, but can't picture the actual song.

Ahhh - got it, someone had mentioned it here. According to the article, it was a parody of "We Are the World". If my newly-jogged memory serves, I think their version was something along the lines of "God Hates the World". The video ended with a tiny little girl, aged maybe about two, singing it - it was really quite [Projectile] [Disappointed] [Mad] [Frown]
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Farmer:
...
There is a report out that a record label is after the clan for unauthorized use of one of their songs.

Bloody well about time. There's more than one way to, er, prepare Campbellite's dinner. Remember, Al Capone was sent to jail for tax evasion, not for being a gangster. It's nice to see copyright legislation being used to protect artistic integrity, not just commercial interests. OliviaG
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
must be a state thing, because it's not a crime here.

As far as I know(I'm not American), the right to burn American flags had been upheld by the SCOTUS, and attempts to ammend the constitution to make it illegal have never succeeded.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
There is an interesting interview online with Nate Phelps, one of the Phelps kids who ran away from the family as soon as he turned eighteen. Harsh stuff.

quote:
Nate agrees with prominent atheist and scientist Richard Dawkins, who has said that religion can be "real child abuse."
Given his descriptions of some of the things he grew up with, this is not an unreasonable perspective for him to have. Also interesting was that the first comment on the article was from someone claiming to be Shirley Phelps-Roper. Obviously on the internet you can be whoever you want, but it did seem to have that trademark Phelps style.
 
Posted by auntbeast (# 377) on :
 
Apparently Phelps is trying to head out here to Vancouver to protest a production of the Laramie Project. Can you say free publicity?!?! The venue that it is being performed in is only 60 seats so a good public run at the border and or a good loud protest could give them enough coverage to sell the show out.... you can't pay for coverage like that. Of course I would rather that we just sent him back from whence he came at the border which could still make some news and give some fallout publicity for the show without running the risk of letting him in the country and then not being able to get rid of him... sort of like some evil virus that you can't kill you just have to contain it until it dies of it's own accord.

Cheers,
Auntbeast
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by auntbeast:
Apparently Phelps is trying to head out here to Vancouver to protest a production of the Laramie Project. Can you say free publicity?!?! The venue that it is being performed in is only 60 seats so a good public run at the border and or a good loud protest could give them enough coverage to sell the show out.... you can't pay for coverage like that. Of course I would rather that we just sent him back from whence he came at the border which could still make some news and give some fallout publicity for the show without running the risk of letting him in the country and then not being able to get rid of him... sort of like some evil virus that you can't kill you just have to contain it until it dies of it's own accord.

Cheers,
Auntbeast

Could there also be a hope that the Phelpsians may act as some kind of homeopathic remedy for homophobia? Other Christian groups that take a equally dim, but less vociferous, view of gay/lesbian relationships may have to reconsider the very basis of their view to ensure they don't get associated with the poisonous Westboro Baptist Church (as opposed to other, legal and decent, Westboro Baptist Churches).
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
Update on the reception for the Phelpses: two local MPs have written to the Minister of Justice to request that they be turned back at the border (as happened to them earlier this year when they tried to picket a funeral in Manitoba). The local community is also organizing a non-violent anti-hate demonstration to greet them if they somehow do manage to sneak in. And, well, frankly, if tempers do fray, I can't say I'll blame the locals. What else are we supposed to do with foreign agents provocateur? OliviaG
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
PS Sorry, Minister for Public Safety. You can read the MPs' statement here:
http://libbydavies.ca/
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
PS Sorry, Minister for Public Safety. You can read the MPs' statement here:
http://libbydavies.ca/

[Overused]
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
And has Doris responded? Or has he been shifted to yet another post? He'd probably be on Phred's side, anyway.
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
Pete, Doris was shuffled to International Trade. OliviaG
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
There's an interview with Libby Davies and Shirley Phelps-Roper on the CBC website:

ETA link: Stop anti-gay group...

Anyway, Ms. Davies explains the situation. Ms. Phelps-Roper just screams. OliviaG

[ 20. November 2008, 00:08: Message edited by: OliviaG ]
 
Posted by Wiff Waff (# 10424) on :
 
I agree with one of the comments on the first link - allow them in to Canada, allow them to start demonstrating then arrest them and throw the lot in jail for a year or ten. They won't be missed and I'm sure they'd make lots of lovely new friends.
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
I don't know about arresting the Phelps' clan. The Phelps' family live on a persecution complex. Arrest them, and they will start screaming "You are persecuting us!".

Better to ignore them, and focus on other things in the world. You do not pay attention to idiots, you let them wallow in their own stupidity, and sooner or later, they will get their own comeuppance.
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
Idiot who break the law, however mouthy, are entitled to the same consideration as silent idiots.
 
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :
 
They were in Portland on Monday. There was a little glitch in their plans, since the Swedish consulate closed in June. There was a fairly non-confrontational counterdemonstration, which included one person with a sign saying "I'm reasonably certain God does not hate fags." One of Fred's granddaughters was quoted as saying "we're not trying to save anybody," which kind of sums the whole thing up, dontcha think?

[preview psot!]

[ 27. November 2008, 05:18: Message edited by: Timothy the Obscure ]
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I don't know about arresting the Phelps' clan. The Phelps' family live on a persecution complex. Arrest them, and they will start screaming "You are persecuting us!". ...

If they were home-grown bozos, that might be an option to consider. However, they are not. The Phelpses are deliberately entering our country in order to violate our laws. They should get the same reception that I would if I announced I was going to Seattle to rob a bank. OliviaG
 
Posted by teddybear (# 7842) on :
 
I would love to see Canada do what hasn't been done here in the USA, arrest them and make them spend time in jail! It would gladden the heart of this Topekan and I'm sure, many others as well.
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
The Phelpses chickened out:

Supporters defend Laramie Project playing at Vancouver café

OliviaG
 
Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on :
 
Reading the article above, struck by the irony of the comment made by a supporter of the play:

"I think you defy hatred by love. That's how you deal with hatred."

I'm sure Jesus said something about that!

And aren't Christians supposed to be loving under persecution and not the heathen sinners!!??
 
Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
...included one person with a sign saying "I'm reasonably certain God does not hate fags."

I guess that person was British, then [Razz] - or if not, Episcopalian [Biased] .

Phelps and co bring out the worst anti-libertarian in me to fight with the bleeding-heart liberal I usually am. It's like the BNP issue - everyone has a right to free speech, except the ones who preach hatred and prejudice. If anyone finds out how to square that circle, do let me know. [Help]
 
Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rev per Minute:
Phelps and co bring out the worst anti-libertarian in me to fight with the bleeding-heart liberal I usually am. It's like the BNP issue - everyone has a right to free speech, except the ones who preach hatred and prejudice. If anyone finds out how to square that circle, do let me know. [Help]

I don't think there should be many limits on what one can say, but there should be on where. People shouldn't be allowed to harass and intimidate ordinary people as part of "free speech".

On your soap box in the park? Fine.
Outside someone's funeral? No.

Personally I am amazed the Phelpses are still alive. One day they are going to protest at the funeral of the wrong soldier, and his buddies are going to snap.
 
Posted by Frustrated Farmer (# 10782) on :
 
While driving in the city tonight, the clan were out picketing on a busy street not far from the local synagogue. They have added Santa Claus to their list of #$%^. [Disappointed]

[ 06. December 2008, 03:46: Message edited by: Frustrated Farmer ]
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Farmer:
While driving in the city tonight, the clan were out picketing on a busy street not far from the local synagogue. They have added Santa Claus to their list of #$%^. [Disappointed]

Is Santa gay? Just what goes on with him and all those elves?
 
Posted by The Blessed Pangolin (# 13623) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

Is Santa gay? Just what goes on with him and all those elves? [/QB][/QUOTE]

I always thought that Mrs Claus was a beard!

[ 06. December 2008, 19:05: Message edited by: The Blessed Pangolin ]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Santa may or not be gay, but he's apparently the gateway to Hell.

The Phelps clan, apparently hearing about the controversy surrounding the atheist sign in the Washington state capitol, have made their own submission to the displays (which now also include a Festivus Pole). They've even got a song!
 
Posted by Frustrated Farmer (# 10782) on :
 
There is a story in the local paper tonight that someone vandalized the church that the clan attends.

www.cjonline.com
 
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
Did hanging out near the synagogue bring ol' Satan Claws to mind, or is there something about fat red furry men that makes Phelps' bunch want to go bother a synagogue?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Farmer:
There is a story in the local paper tonight that someone vandalized the church that the clan attends.

www.cjonline.com

"Police have identified a suspect and warn the public not to approach a heavily built man wearing red, who fled the scene on a sleigh drawn by eight moose."
 
Posted by ozowen (# 8935) on :
 
Pat them on the head
Tell them "Everything will be all right" and give them a biscuit.

Make sure this is televised.
When they rant and rave talk to the camera saying "Aren't they cute? I wonder what they will be like when they grow up."
 
Posted by Frustrated Farmer (# 10782) on :
 
http://cjonline.com/stories/010909/bre_phelps.shtml


The clan is at it again! Law suit filed over anti-funeral picketing ordinance.
 
Posted by Frustrated Farmer (# 10782) on :
 
Just so Phred does not completely fade from our memories:

While driving to church yesterday morning, the clan was busy standing on the sidewalk in front of the Methodist church up the street with their less than clever signs. Driving on to the corner that the Episcopalians share with the Lutherans, I discovered that they were working there also.


[Disappointed]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Farmer:
Just so Phred does not completely fade from our memories:

While driving to church yesterday morning, the clan was busy standing on the sidewalk in front of the Methodist church up the street with their less than clever signs. Driving on to the corner that the Episcopalians share with the Lutherans, I discovered that they were working there also.


[Disappointed]

Let me get it right: instead of picketing military funerals the Phelpsians are picketing churches? Why churches? Why aren't they picketing stores, factories and banks?
 
Posted by Frustrated Farmer (# 10782) on :
 
Phred and the clan do not believe that most churches interpret scripture correctly, especially on homosexuality. Hence they picket churches that do not share their interpretation of the same. I have seen signs that suggest that all clergy are f@#s or enablers of f&#s.

At one time they sent out a schedule of which churches were going to be picketed during the week. RC and Episcopal churches seem to be favorites, but Methodists, Lutherans and the local synagogue are also on the list.

[Waterworks] [Projectile]

If you would like the link to his website, send me a private message. I will not give him free publicity on the web.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
They are coming to Basingstoke UK.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/4640967/Westboro-Baptist-Church-announces-first-anti-homosexuality-picket -in-Britain.html
 
Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on :
 
Interested to see that God will destroy the UK (and the rest of the world). Presumably not while the clan are here picketing our low budget art projects, though, so maybe we should ask them to stay?
 
Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Jestocost:
Interested to see that God will destroy the UK (and the rest of the world). Presumably not while the clan are here picketing our low budget art projects, though, so maybe we should ask them to stay?

Oh go on, take one for the team.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
Will the U.K. actually let them in?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Curiously enough, it's the theatre at my old sixth-form college. If I still lived nearby, I'd attend the planned counter-demonstration...
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Will the U.K. actually let them in?

We should let them in, then arrest them using our draconian anti-hate speech laws. I knew they'd be useful one day...
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
Send 'em to Gaytanamo Gay!
 
Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :
 
They could always picket this church.

One wonders if it is possible to throw rocks at people in Christian love...

AG
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
Thank you, sandemendiac!

Proof that despite mighty erections, the manner of humpin' gays leads to destruction!
 
Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :
 
[Snigger]

I like that a lot!

AG
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Will the U.K. actually let them in?

They are already here. According to one newspaper, they travelled here in separate little groups on different flights over a period of time.

I don't know hpw they smuggled their little banners and placards in but I expect the airports agreed with their message about fags since the smoking ban came in.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Now you mention it, leo, they'd be a really useful addition to the smoking cessation service I have contacts with.

[ 18. February 2009, 13:20: Message edited by: Adeodatus ]
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Will the U.K. actually let them in?

They are already here. According to one newspaper, they travelled here in separate little groups on different flights over a period of time. [...]
Have you got a link, leo?
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
Oh dear! Q&As with the Torygraph... - well, not so much "As" as "ass". [Disappointed]
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I don't know hpw they smuggled their little banners and placards in but I expect the airports agreed with their message about fags since the smoking ban came in.

Heh. fabulous. there's got to be some way of incorporating the anti-smoking message.

can't you just see it? "No Smoking in this Church. God Hates Fags!"
[Snigger]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wesley J:
Oh dear! Q&As with the Torygraph... - well, not so much "As" as "ass". [Disappointed]

Wonderful! Even ALL in capitals, in green ink on pages torn from exercise books it could not read more barking and frothing at the mouth than it does it that.

I might have gone to a counter-picket but the event is at Basingstoke. [Projectile]
 
Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I might have gone to a counter-picket but the event is at Basingstoke.

Anyone fancy an impromptu Shipmeet on the picket lines?

[Snigger]
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Wonderful!

It's brilliant. I love how she can write...
quote:
And what will you do when you all land in hell FOR EVER where the worm that eats on you NEVER dies and the fire is NEVER quenched and the smoke of your torment ascends up for ever and ever and ever and ever and ever - never ending
...and then sign off with the cheery little:
quote:
Thanks for asking!


Shirley Phelps-Roper


 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
That's just too funny. There's so much brilliant comedy. The Obama=antichrist schtick is rubber-walls loony, but it's been done to death. And I want to know who the "UNREPINENTANT" is, and why the poor guy has to be sent to hell for ever.

But my favourite has to be the random mention of our "goofy queen", which in correspondence with the Torygraph has to go down as a pretty good way of shooting yourself in the foot, followed by an exclamation of "YIKES" which looks so out of place I had to read it several times over.
 
Posted by lady in red (# 10688) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
That's just too funny. There's so much brilliant comedy. The Obama=antichrist schtick is rubber-walls loony, but it's been done to death. And I want to know who the "UNREPINENTANT" is, and why the poor guy has to be sent to hell for ever.

Aw shucks, Gumby got there first. I wanted to be the first to express my delight at being an UNREPINENTANT Brit [Biased]
 
Posted by Earwig (# 12057) on :
 
My favourite bit is
quote:
The God Smacks are HIS WORK!
. Yum. I'd eat God Smacks every morning!
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
Well it seems like Fred and Shirley have been banned. Don't know about the rest of them.

As I said on the Wilder thread I'm quite happy to see this happen. Our own home-grown idiots should have freedom of speech, and be dealt with through discussion not suppression. But I see no reason to import idiots from abroad; it isn't as though we are suffering from a national shortage after all.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wesley J:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Will the U.K. actually let them in?

They are already here. According to one newspaper, they travelled here in separate little groups on different flights over a period of time. [...]
Have you got a link, leo?
I think it was a link from Ecclesia's website but I have deleted it.
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
No worries.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Found it - in yesterday's independent:

The group yesterday claimed it had secretly dispatched followers to the UK to avoid being denied entry to the country under Britain’s anti-hate laws.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coming-to-britain-church-with-a-mission-to-demonise-homosexuals-1624883.html
 
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
Much as I dislike the Government's use of banning orders, I think on this occasion Jacqui Smith has got it right. And I don't rate the chances of the infiltrators...
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I don't know hpw they smuggled their little banners and placards in...

I'd imagine that if they have enough money to fly here and stay in a hotel here they probably have enough to pop round to Ryman's and buy a few sheets of A3 and some felt-tip pens.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
I think whoever wrote that hilarious stuff in the Telegraph was taking the piss.

If you remember those TV documentaries about the Phelpses last year (or was it the year before) they may have been nasty but they certainly were neither illiterate nor stupid. And they were capable of making and taking jokes about themselves. (Which seemed to confuse the documentary makers who didn't expect it). I wonder if one of them thought "the British press is going to mock us and try to crucify us anyway, lets give them something to be mad about"
 
Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :
 
Well, at least Phred and daughter Shirley have been barred from entering the country.

And I love the idea that every member has
quote:
Property of WBC
tattooed on their backsides - that's what she said! How bizarre!!
 
Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :
 
Sorry - missed the Daily Telegraph entry above about the banning and too late to edit.

But at least the BBC report does give the Phelpses' response.
 
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :
 
Expanding a little on TonyK's comment,


quote:
"Unless they intend to begin checking the bare backsides of every person coming into that country to find that tattoo that says 'Property of WBC' - they will have no way of identifying who is from WBC."
since bare backsides are, apparently, what causes Earthquakes, Moral Degeneration and Other Diuerse Ills, I really am wondering if the WBC isn't a long-running piece of Po-Mo Performance Art?
 
Posted by Jenn. (# 5239) on :
 
http://www.godhatestheworld.com/unitedkingdom/government.html

You gotta love 'em. They are very entertaining. Completely batshit crazy of course, but very funny!
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jenn.:
http://www.godhatestheworld.com/unitedkingdom/government.html

You gotta love 'em. They are very entertaining. Completely batshit crazy of course, but very funny!

quote:
This just in - Westboro Baptst Churh has been banned from the UK by their filthy government!
Don't you think they'd be able to spell "Baptist" and "Church"?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jenn.:
http://www.godhatestheworld.com/unitedkingdom/government.html

You gotta love 'em. They are very entertaining. Completely batshit crazy of course, but very funny!

Hmmm...noting the pic in the upper right corner of that page, I wonder if the Beatles could sue them?
[Smile]

I see that this site is much calmer--visually, anyway--than their original GHF site. The front page of this site is...interesting. You click on a map to see what God hates about a particular country. Some countries, like Iceland, don't have anything yet. Perhaps Iceland is pure in God's eyes?
[Biased]

Now to clean those links from my poor computer! Good 'puter, nice 'puter.
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
quote:
"Unless they intend to begin checking the bare backsides of every person coming into that country to find that tattoo that says 'Property of WBC' - they will have no way of identifying who is from WBC."
Well, I suspect since most of the church membership related to Rev. Phelps, and membership hasn't expanded much past Kansas, that it will be a simple matter.
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Some countries, like Iceland, don't have anything yet. Perhaps Iceland is pure in God's eyes?
[Biased]

Now to clean those links from my poor computer! Good 'puter, nice 'puter.

Perhaps they think Iceland's a supermarket?
 
Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on :
 
quote:
Hmmm...noting the pic in the upper right corner of that page, I wonder if the Beatles could sue them?
The picture on this page is even better ...
 
Posted by uffda (# 14310) on :
 
Apparently these vultures are headed to Buffalo to picket the funerals of the plane crash victims.One of our Lutheran Churches just near the crash site is holding a community service on Sunday and they are targeted to be picketed.

Just what these poor families need.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Jestocost:
The picture on this page is even better ...

An odd illustration for an article on "buggery" -- but a great picture.
[Killing me]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
"Unless they intend to begin checking the bare backsides of every person coming into that country to find that tattoo that says 'Property of WBC' - they will have no way of identifying who is from WBC."
Wouldn't this make a great Monty Python sketch?
[Snigger] [Killing me]
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
"Unless they intend to begin checking the bare backsides of every person coming into that country to find that tattoo that says 'Property of WBC' - they will have no way of identifying who is from WBC."
Wouldn't this make a great Monty Python sketch?
[Snigger] [Killing me]

Especially if they come across someone with three buttocks.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
My Basingstoke frieds tell me that there were no protests on Friday.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Anyone know if the Phelps tribe were the ones picketing the Oscars? Sean Penn was almost gentle with the protesters. He just said they they were sad and ought to trade in their hate cards.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
My Basingstoke frieds tell me that there were no protests on Friday.

Correction - one turned up according to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7903344.stm
 
Posted by Frustrated Farmer (# 10782) on :
 
According to our local paper today, yes the clan were present at the Oscar ceremony yesterday. It was reported that the clan did not think that Sean Penn had much understanding of the bible. [Disappointed]

[ 24. February 2009, 02:32: Message edited by: Frustrated Farmer ]
 
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :
 
These people bring disgrace on the Christian community, for all of 10 seconds .People KNOW they aren't representative of the believing community . Unless you are narrow minded prig.
I used to be and had to grow up!!!!!!
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Anyone know if the Phelps tribe were the ones picketing the Oscars? Sean Penn was almost gentle with the protesters. He just said they they were sad and ought to trade in their hate cards.

"...for those who saw the signs of hatred as our cars drove in tonight, I think that it is a good time for those who voted for the ban against gay marriage to sit and reflect and anticipate their great shame and the shame in their grandchildren's eyes if they continue that way of support."

Tough words, but you're right, his delivery was very gentle.

Boy. Who'd 'a thunk little Sean Penn would have grown up to be such a mensch? [Tear]
 
Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on :
 
You know, the Westboro people are probably the only people on the planet who can have Basingstoke and LA in their diaries in the same week. Surely some kind of achievement?

A nice picture at punditkitchen.com sums it up well.
 
Posted by Petrified (# 10667) on :
 
I see (from their site) they are planning pickets after the shootings in Germany and USA.
Could someone buy them a speel cheker.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
No, leave the misspellings. They give us something to laugh at in Westboro's work. The rest is sickness and tragedy.
 
Posted by piglet (# 11803) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

... Some countries, like Iceland, don't have anything yet. Perhaps Iceland is pure in God's eyes? [Biased]

I'm sure it is, but the Phelpsists won't think so when they read this.
 
Posted by davelarge (# 186) on :
 
So, the fundy we all love to hate is threatening to come to the UK next Friday, so that he can picket a primary school. This is despite being banned from entering the country a month or so ago.

Just thought any locals'd like to know. [Smile]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Hmmmm...perhaps he'll be stopped at the airport as a security threat?
[Big Grin]
 
Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
I don't have a link for this but I've been told that somewhere in their press releases Fred and Co. say they are planning on picketing Nataha Richardson's funeral. Because she was a supporter of gay rights.
 
Posted by Cantiones Sacrae (# 12774) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
I don't have a link for this but I've been told that somewhere in their press releases Fred and Co. say they are planning on picketing Nataha Richardson's funeral. Because she was a supporter of gay rights.

Here (not suitable for work!)
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Perhaps Phelps & co. could be put on a tiny, uninhabited island somewhere? They could raise their own food, etc., and not have to deal with the rest of the world.

Alternatively, give a working light saber to Liam Neesen, Natasha's widower. He played Q'uigon in one of the "Star Wars" movies...

[Votive]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
[Disappointed]

Boy, am I sorry I read that flyer.

No pun intended, but by their fruits shall you know them. Anybody who could work up that kind of hatred and verbal abuse for that graceful woman is just really looking for ways to poison the good things God has given us.
 
Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
What I have noticed about the Phelps MO is that they have built up a reputation such that they only have to threaten to show up (and perhaps still make some half-hearted plans to do so) and they get tons of publicity, which includes photos of their members holding signs with their "God hates Fags" message and also links (or at least enough info) to lead people to their websites, etc.

The bottom line is that they maintain an incredible level of name recognition. And as many a politician can tell you (including me - I just got elected Town Treasurer without doing anything except putting my name on the ballot), name recognition is important.

Unfortunately in this day of Google-type searches, even this thread adds to their public presence and serves their purpose.

And the Devil's win is that by posting to somthing to oppose them, you keep it active and by ignoring it you can't pass along accurate or useful information.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
According to http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-11826.html , 'Members of the US Westboro Baptist Church, who chant slogans such as "fags burn in hell", have unintentionally raised money for a gay rights group.'
 
Posted by Saint Hedrin the Lesser-Known (# 11399) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
According to http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-11826.html , 'Members of the US Westboro Baptist Church, who chant slogans such as "fags burn in hell", have unintentionally raised money for a gay rights group.'

REALLY???
[Eek!]
 
Posted by Wiff Waff (# 10424) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
According to http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-11826.html , 'Members of the US Westboro Baptist Church, who chant slogans such as "fags burn in hell", have unintentionally raised money for a gay rights group.'

So even the Devil can do the Lord's work.

[Big Grin]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
I think that even the most avid evildoer will find out in the long run that they can't really interefere with God's work. The problem with God's work is that it usually happens at a glacial pace, whereas evil is better at quick and flashy.

IMHO, of course.
 
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :
 
Amen, Kelly.

I have heard that 1) having a fundraiser and 2) letting them know about it* is a great way for them to "remember urgent appointments elsewhere".

(As Jennifer says, a lot of it is bluffing to get publicity.)

I will remember phelps-a-thon.com in case they threaten to show their face locally again. (They backed out of a Laramie Project staging around here last fall to go to Hawaii and "picket" Madelyn Dunham's funeral.)

* you don't even really have to write them. My experience is that they are in very close contact with the local police so you could pass the message along through them.

Charlotte
 
Posted by Frustrated Farmer (# 10782) on :
 
Straight from my local newspaper


http://www.cjonline.com/opinion/2009-05-05/column_phelps%E2%80%99_estranged_son_raises_questions_about_atheism
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
Farmer, your link is broken.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
The Phreddies, amongst others, are on the British government's "You Are Not Welcome Here" list.

A spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain says that people should be free to enter Britain, whatever their views, and I agree; their views are no concern of mine. When however, their views have been expressed in such a way as to make it likely that they will cause any disturbance, they I think the government should be able to keep people out.
 
Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
Try this to get to the Topeka Capital-Journal article cited by Frustrated Farmer.
 
Posted by Frustrated Farmer (# 10782) on :
 
Sorry about the link. I am not particularly savvy about a lot of computer tasks. [Frown]
 
Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
I don't have a link, but if I'm not mistaken, Fred and Co were picketting the funeral of the abortion doctor that was recently murdered.
 
Posted by Jack the Lass (# 3415) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
According to http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-11826.html , 'Members of the US Westboro Baptist Church, who chant slogans such as "fags burn in hell", have unintentionally raised money for a gay rights group.'

New of another Phelps-a-thon here.
 
Posted by sgk (# 14135) on :
 
WBC in Vermont

They showed up in Vermont to protest the start of same-sex marriages there.

(Vermont was first, I think, with civil unions. This year the legislature passed a same-sex marriage act.)
 
Posted by Wiff Waff (# 10424) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sgk:
WBC in Vermont

They showed up in Vermont to protest the start of same-sex marriages there.

(Vermont was first, I think, with civil unions. This year the legislature passed a same-sex marriage act.)

Well done Vermont and well done those that raised the money to support Gay Rights groups! The Phelps contribution to raising awareness of the issues continues to grow.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wiff Waff:
The Phelps contribution to raising awareness of the issues continues to grow.

that Phreddy. he's just such a giver.
 
Posted by DagonSlaveII (# 15162) on :
 
They get their money though suing anyone who physically retaliates against them.

I actually got to watch one of their protests in person, when I went to Nicholls S U ... it was a mere handful of protesters and well over 300 students, at any given time. One was a small child. The students chanted "Save the Kid!" ...and no one laid a finger on them. I think I skipped a class to watch it. I love trainwrecks.
 
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :
 
My city has two reasons to be on the Phelps-a-Thon .

Thursday 9/24 the Phelps crowd will be picketing outside one of our high schools where the play The Laramie Project will be performed. And they will also be making an appearance at the Jewish Community Center on the same day.

Many of us are trying to get local folks to contribute to the phelps-a-thon rather than provoke anything with angry counter rallies.

A student from the school stood up in church on Sunday and asked for prayers because they are nervous, but the play will go on.

sabine

[ 21. September 2009, 21:52: Message edited by: sabine ]
 
Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
I just read in my local paper that Phelps and co will be in Great Neck, Long Island this Friday (9/25) but the article didn't say what they were picketing (it was actually about local government's request to the public to ignore them as much as possible). I'm slightly puzzled, I can't think of anything I've heard about that would attract their attention in these parts recently, and I don't want to go to their website to look. Anyone know what's up?
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
I don't know what's up, Nicole, but I would just like to point out that your post was number 666!

[Eek!]
 
Posted by Wiff Waff (# 10424) on :
 
If you follow sabine's link then Great Neck is mentioned 6 times on the Phelps-a-thon page - what a busy lot of little Phelpses they are going to be!
 
Posted by Wiff Waff (# 10424) on :
 
p.s. the whole thing that day appears to be quite heavily anti-semitic.

eta: do you think we could get Mossad to quietly bump them all off?

[ 22. September 2009, 15:04: Message edited by: Wiff Waff ]
 
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :
 
Well, if you want a confrontation (and we are hoping not to have one here), our JCC has the best fitness facility in town. Lots of people in great shape....just sayin' -- not really intending to incite. [Smile]

sabine
 
Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
My goodness, I should have checked out that link long ago. It seems like they're going to be in Flushing, right next door to me, that day too. What a pity I have to be with my husband at the hospital while he has a hernia operation and I can't be there to counter protest. [Frown]

Oh yeah, I noticed the 666 number after I posted, PeteC. [Eek!]
 
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :
 
FYI, the Phelps-a-Thon web site will gather contributions toward organizations related to the Phelps hate list in each town and then....

...send a courteous thank you note to the Phelps crowd indicating how much was contributed and thanking them for the opportunity to raise funds. [Two face]

sabine
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
for any shipmates planning to counter-rally - I want pictures!
 
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
for any shipmates planning to counter-rally - I want pictures!

The two target groups in my city have requested no counter-protests and have suggested, instead, that folks donate to the Phelps-a-Thon web site which will then direct the donations to local organizations.

Of course, there will probably be some people who counter-protest anyway, and if there is a picture on any of our media web sites, I'll post it.

sabine
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
A friend of mine just told me this evening that she's going to be in 'The Laramie Project' and that someone mentioned the possibility of some wacko minister showing up. I told her about the Phelps-a-Thon website -- she was delighted with the idea and asked me to send her the link, which I did.
 
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :
 
There was almost a complete media shut-out of Phelps et. al. here in Indy. Good, don't give them any attention.

I haven't been able to find out if any counter-protesters showed up or not. The school and community center asked that no one counter protest.

sabine
 
Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
Here's a link to an article about them here on Long Island today, including a link to some pictures of both the Phelps bunch and counter protestors.

Article here
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
There was almost a complete media shut-out of Phelps et. al. here in Indy. Good, don't give them any attention.

I haven't been able to find out if any counter-protesters showed up or not. The school and community center asked that no one counter protest.

sabine

I'm beginning to think that way about the Phelpsians. "No reaction - no satisfaction".

Works with whiny kids, and that's the Phelpsian level of debate.
 
Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
Here's a link to an article about them here on Long Island today, including a link to some pictures of both the Phelps bunch and counter protestors.

Article here

Following that link gave me the abbreviated heading
quote:
Westboro group's anti-gay, anti-Jew demons...
That about sums it up!
 
Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
Tony K, that's odd, when I click on it it takes me to the article and pictures, and it's not that I'm registered with the site or anything. Are you sure you let it load fully, and scrolled down? [Confused]

edited because of silly typos.

[ 26. September 2009, 19:48: Message edited by: Nicolemrw ]
 
Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :
 
Nicolemrw - I'm having no trouble seeing the article - it's just that the heading (next to the Favourites icon in my V8 Internet Explorer) has this appropriate abbreviation for 'demonstration'.
 
Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
Tony K, Oh OK, misunderstanding straightened out. Yes, that is particularly appropriate somehow.
 
Posted by HenryT (# 3722) on :
 
I just ponied up $30 to the Phelps-a-thon. Money well spent. Fred, God loves you. But I think He's less than pleased with your behaviour. Remember that thing about not taking Christians to court? And love and charity with your neighbours?
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
Good old Phred ended up making an appearance in neighbourhood for Yom Kippur. Literally right around the corner from where I live is the Kane Street Synagogue, which in the Conservative stream but has called female rabbis and does gay and lesbian commitment ceremonies.

He was out there for a few hours telling them that God really hates Jews and holding awful signs like "Thank God for the Holocaust" but they just ignored him and he left.

New York Daily News: Kansas Hate Group gives Brooklyn Synagogues flak

[ 30. September 2009, 17:31: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
The Jeremy Kyle Show - which basically exploits dysfunctional families in the UK, ran a repeat of an interview with 3 of the women yesterday.

It was amusing to hear them misquote scripture.
 
Posted by TaliessinC (# 14234) on :
 
They are invading Southern California with a vengeance in a week or so. Looking at their picketing schedule it looks like someone said "hey, while we're there hating the Jews, lets toss the dice and decide on a few schools and Christian fellowships to harass!" Weird.

Any idea why they are so ... obsessively vile?
 
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TaliessinC:

Any idea why they are so ... obsessively vile?

fear-based hate, I'd think, with some frustration and perhaps a bit of thought disturbance thrown in.

sabine

[ 12. October 2009, 20:36: Message edited by: sabine ]
 
Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
quote:
Originally posted by TaliessinC:

Any idea why they are so ... obsessively vile?

fear-based hate, I'd think, with some frustration and perhaps a bit of thought disturbance thrown in.

sabine

...or they are all completely mental!

As a Quaker I believe that they have "that of God" within them, but some folks hide it better than others.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
I saw a TV listing for a recent episode of "Supernanny", where Jo was going to work with..."the Phelps family". If only! But I wouldn't wish that on Jo.

[Paranoid] [Help] [Two face]
 
Posted by Frustrated Farmer (# 10782) on :
 
Just so we do not forget these individuals are still amongst us, while Mrs. Farmer and I were walking into church last Saturday evening, the clan was busy standing across the street holding their signs. [Disappointed]
 
Posted by Campbellite (# 1202) on :
 
If you get picketed by the Phelpes, then you must be doing something right.
 
Posted by Frustrated Farmer (# 10782) on :
 
I am not skilled in providing links, but this article was in the local paper this evening:


http://cjonline.com/news/local/2009-12-07/phelps_roper_loses_appeal

Shirley lost her appeal today in Nebraska on flag desecration charges.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Talk about mixed feelings. Still I don't think we need to be making laws like that about the flag, even if I'd like to see one of the Phelpses get tagged for it.

Did you see the name of their lawyer? I wonder if he goes to their church.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Farmer:
I am not skilled in providing links, but this article was in the local paper this evening:


http://cjonline.com/news/local/2009-12-07/phelps_roper_loses_appeal

Shirley lost her appeal today in Nebraska on flag desecration charges.

"In this country, the law is you can burn a flag, stand on it, destroy it to make your point," said Shirley Phelps-Roper.

This Brit has picked up enough to know that things vary from state to state, and it looks to my untutored eye that Shirley Phelps-Roper has fallen foul of a Nebraskan law. So her understanding of man's law is as accurate as her understanding of scripture. Big deal. Anyone surprised?
 
Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
Can she get life in a padded cell on a mere misdemanour charge?
 
Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
I thought the Supremes had ruled that flag desecration laws were unconstitutional? [Confused]
 
Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
I thought the Supremes had ruled that flag desecration laws were unconstitutional? [Confused]

Perhaps Diana Ross disagreed...


Sorry, I'll go away again.
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
I brought this forward so more general sightings could be recorded...

I am such an [Angel]
 
Posted by basso (# 4228) on :
 
Readers of the prayer thread will recall the suicide of a young member of my parish -- one of four last year at the same railroad crossing by people from the same high school.

There was another death there a couple of days ago, and now the Branch Fred Phelpsians have announced that they're coming to the school.

There's a fundraiser for the school's GLBT alliance to go with the planned protest. If you're so disposed, take a look.
 
Posted by Lou Poulain (# 1587) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by basso:
Readers of the prayer thread will recall the suicide of a young member of my parish -- one of four last year at the same railroad crossing by people from the same high school.

There was another death there a couple of days ago, and now the Branch Fred Phelpsians have announced that they're coming to the school.


The mind boggles. These assholes are totally soul-less... and pretty damned creepy.
I'm a "neighbor" of Basso's just down the road in Sunnyvale. Our communities have been grieving and also working to find ways to avoid this kind of tragedy in the future. It infuriates me beyond measure that these ___________ (fill in your own favorite expletive) come to where people are suffering and do their damnedest to multiply the pain.
Lou
 
Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
Someone on my livejournal friends list is going to be attending this 1picketting, and taking pictures. If he posts them on-line, I'll post a link to them here.
 
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
If I wanted to create an organization that would really drive Phelps-ish folk nuts -- just sort of float a fake website that would catch t heir attention & drive them nuts -- what would it have to encompass? What would it need to embrace or promote?


Gay Scouts United

MELVINA -- Manly Emancipated Ladies Victorious In National Affairs

MENSES -- Miscegenated and Erotic Negroid Studly Escort Service

The All-Tranny Tuba-Flute Abortion Orchestra


What sorts of things do they get excited about?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
If I wanted to create an organization that would really drive Phelps-ish folk nuts -- just sort of float a fake website that would catch t heir attention & drive them nuts -- what would it have to encompass? What would it need to embrace or promote?


Gay Scouts United

MELVINA -- Manly Emancipated Ladies Victorious In National Affairs

MENSES -- Miscegenated and Erotic Negroid Studly Escort Service

The All-Tranny Tuba-Flute Abortion Orchestra


What sorts of things do they get excited about?

Is it possible to drive them nuts? I mean, can you give rabies to a rabid dog? Could anything send such people any further over the top.

I reckon the Ship would do pretty well, but I'm sure it is on the Phelpsian Index Diabolicus.
 
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
I really am not sure exactly what flips their Twinkie(tm).

I know just about anything even vaguely same-sex-related must bug them, since that much leaks out into secular news; I never hear about about anything but Caucasoid-looking people in amongst them, and they're supposed to be largely interrelated/all one family (?)... So surely there could be cultural/ethnic/racial buttons to push.

I was hoping someone who has already lost his/her Phelps-virginity would offer me some suggestions. That way, I could avoid actually sullying my eyeballs with their website. Y'know, someone who's already stepped forward into the breech...
 
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :
 
The sad thing is that any attention that is not a complete and utter bow to their ideology (or insanity....I think ideologies have some sort of quasi-logic); anyway, anything short of actually joining them and parroting back their filthy bile is seen as an attack and a reason for counter-attack.

That's why the folks in my city (the school being picketted, the media, etc) decided to simply ignore them.

That doesn't mean that they didn't have a chance to enjoy a bit of self-pleasuring in the act of being themselves without an audience, but at least we didn't have a part in escalating it.

sabine

[ 28. January 2010, 13:59: Message edited by: sabine ]
 
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 
If Phelps is coming to a school near you, consider running a Phelps-a-thon, taking what they meant for evil and using it to do good. (I just learned about the Phelps-a-thon thing from a friend who knows a teacher at one of the targeted schools.)
 
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

If Phelps is coming to a school near you, consider running a Phelps-a-thon, taking what they meant for evil and using it to do good. (I just learned about the Phelps-a-thon thing from a friend who knows a teacher at one of the targeted schools.)

I'm glad you found out about this Josephine and thanks for posting. It's been mentioned here before, but this thread is so long that it needs to be on each page, IMO.

And the more the word gets passed IRL, the better. Some of that hate needs to be changed into contributions for charities devoted to the very things the Phelps clan has their knickers in a twist about.

sabine
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
... So surely there could be cultural/ethnic/racial buttons to push.

ISTM that they dislike Swedes (the people, not the veggies). I can't remember why.
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Tangentially, I note that according to his Wiki, Phelps was once a civil rights lawyer, even winning awards from black groups, and is a registered Democrat.

Which makes his current position even more bizarre. Hands up who'd have assumed he was a racist as well, and too far to the right for Democrats or Republicans?

This from earlier in the thread (page 2). How weird a factoid is that? Much bafflement (assuming it's true, of course. Anyone know of any verification of this?).

quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
I wonder if Phelps would regard Jack Chick as a heretic and vice versa. Maybe they could be installed in a room together to tear strips off each other, rather than the world at large.

And Pat Robertson. They could all keep themselves amused in a big hatefest.

As to Basso's story, I know I really shouldn't be amazed by the depths the Phelps lot will dig to, but I am. Cunts.

(Btw, when did all the words "church" in the OP get ****ed?)
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
(Btw, when did all the words "church" in the OP get ****ed?)

I think that happened during H&A Days a couple of years ago.
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
The Phelps clan went to San Francisco recently, and were met with signs, signs, everywhere there's signs.
 
Posted by Rossweisse. (# 2349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
I was hoping someone who has already lost his/her Phelps-virginity would offer me some suggestions. That way, I could avoid actually sullying my eyeballs with their website. Y'know, someone who's already stepped forward into the breech...

What can I tell you about them, my child?
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Dang I love those random signs.

Would it be possible to put up a sign that says "Welcome to the freakshow, tickets one dollar"?
 
Posted by Graven Image (# 8755) on :
 
Spiffy, loved the signs, but why would the Phelps church read family have a problem with Fiddler on the Roof? I must be missing something.
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
Their new thing is promoting the absolutely absurd and completely unbiblical idea that God hates Jews.
 
Posted by Rossweisse. (# 2349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
Their new thing is promoting the absolutely absurd and completely unbiblical idea that God hates Jews.

That one's been done.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
God's been hating Jews for at least 1500 years (if you ask the right (i.e. wrong) people). That's not new. It's unbiblical, yes, but not new.
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse.:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
Their new thing is promoting the absolutely absurd and completely unbiblical idea that God hates Jews.

That one's been done.
Puhlease. Like the Phelps have ever had an original idea in their entire lives.
 
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse.:
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
I was hoping someone who has already lost his/her Phelps-virginity would offer me some suggestions...

What can I tell you about them, my child?
If I ever get them anywhere near me again -- I think DagonSlave mentioned them being near here once --

How might I very pointedly bother them? I mean, easily, conveniently, and completely, without having to make a weeks-long effort out of it. They aren't worth a lot of effort to me...
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Great pics! Thanks for the link, Spiffy! [Smile]
 
Posted by Graven Image (# 8755) on :
 
Spiffy replied
quote:
Their new thing is promoting the absolutely absurd and completely unbiblical idea that God hates Jews.
[Eek!]

I can only imagine how painful these people’s lives must be to be filled daily with so much hate. How fearful they must feel if this is their understanding of who God is and how he views us.
It really makes we wonder how Daddy Phelps started down this road of hate, but alas he was not covered in psychology 101. I should have taken that second class in deviant behaviors.
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse.:
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
I was hoping someone who has already lost his/her Phelps-virginity would offer me some suggestions...

What can I tell you about them, my child?
If I ever get them anywhere near me again -- I think DagonSlave mentioned them being near here once --

How might I very pointedly bother them? I mean, easily, conveniently, and completely, without having to make a weeks-long effort out of it. They aren't worth a lot of effort to me...

It would bother them if you completely and utterly ignored them.

No, seriously. Any attention you give them, positive or negative, at their protests, stokes their little egos.

I think the best response ever, though, and I've spent the last 13 years vaugely following them in the news after my own personal encounter with the crew, is the one I linked above with the mass grouping of other signs, because they and their hate got lost in the crowd.

I had to do the math to get that 13 years number, and it's coincidentally been 13 years since I came out. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Anyone feeling creative? I just started a slogan game in the Circus based on the San Francisco model.
 
Posted by Anna B (# 1439) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse.:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
Their new thing is promoting the absolutely absurd and completely unbiblical idea that God hates Jews.

That one's been done.
Puhlease. Like the Phelps have ever had an original idea in their entire lives.
Preach it sister. God's been hating Fiddler on the Roof for some 45 years now.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anna B:
God's been hating Fiddler on the Roof for some 45 years now.

He's just never seen a really good production of it.
 
Posted by Anna B (# 1439) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Anna B:
God's been hating Fiddler on the Roof for some 45 years now.

He's just never seen a really good production of it.
Kasha brain. Ain't no such and you know it.

Though I will admit that Perchik the revolutionary is quite hot. Especially in the movie. Was he Starsky or Hutch?
 
Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
Starsky! And very adorable too. but they had him wear brown contacts to change his naturally blue eyes.

BTW, Starsky and Hutch, there's something I bet would freak out Fred. Just too much homoeroticism there for him.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anna B:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Anna B:
God's been hating Fiddler on the Roof for some 45 years now.

He's just never seen a really good production of it.
Kasha brain. Ain't no such and you know it.
Bite your own shchi y kasha. I enjoyed it and that's good enough for me.

[ 02. February 2010, 02:14: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
I have a soft spot for any community theater production I've been in. Fiddler is fine.

Let 'em hate Yentl. They prolly do 'cause of the cross-dressing anyway.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
I loved the film! [Smile]

I'm envisioning a lovely, large-scale response:

An entire community of people (and anyone who cares to come in from elsewhere) approaching the Westboro contingent with big smiles and open arms. Performers from "Fiddler", in full costume. Drag queens. Maybe some of those protestors who use giant puppets. Etc.

They surround the Phelpses, and do a circle dance, laughing and singing.


I also think it would be good if a group of angel protestors met the Phelpses--and turned mirrors towards them, so they can see how their hatred looks.
 
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Graven Image:
Spiffy, loved the signs, but why would the Phelps church read family have a problem with Fiddler on the Roof? I must be missing something.

They seem to have done their local research before zooming off to California for a winter break! A revival of Fiddler, with Harvey Fierstein as Tevye (there's two hates for one, he's a gay Jew) has opened locally and been splashed all over the local outlets.

I have to laugh at the lengths to which Clan Phelps will go to try to remain socially relevant, erm, in the news.

I'm sorry I missed it, it sounds like the counter-protesters did it up in old-school absurdist San Francisco style. The Rickroll especially made me laugh. I need to get my angel outfit all organized for the next time.

Charlotte
 
Posted by Huntress (# 2595) on :
 
I had to remind myself it wasn't April 1st today when I came across (on youtube) the videos for the WBC covers of 'Bad' by Michael Jackson (changed to 'God's Mad') and 'Poker Face' by Lady Gaga (or 'Lady Gay Gay' as they call her). The latter is sung by Megan Phelps-Roper, one of the younger generation of WBC, and has become a performance piece at their picketings.

I never thought I'd see Shirley Phelps-Roper trying to execute a Michael Jackson style dance routine.

Having read the examples of SP-R's vocabulary style in her correspondence with Rosseweisse in the 'A Certain Family...' thread I can see the influence in the changed poker face lyrics:

'Russian Roulette is what you're playing silly clod/
but every barrel's loaded when you're playing with your God'

[Roll Eyes] [Paranoid] [brick wall]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Given the venue, this seems more harassment than free speech to me. Hopefully the Supreme Court will agree. It would be a shame if those hateful people received money for their antics.
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
I have to admit, I think the court ruled correctly.

No, you haven't stumbled into Backwardsville. I am a staunch supporter of the First Amendment, which gives anyone the right to say whatever damnfool thing they want (and gives me the right to call them damnfools).

I've also made a donation to the Al Snyder Legal Defense Fund, which will be used to pay any court costs and extra money will be given as scholarships for returning soldiers.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
This was found on the internet. As with much else on the 'net, authenticity is unknown. But it's got a certain plausibility to it.
 
Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This was found on the internet. As with much else on the 'net, authenticity is unknown. But it's got a certain plausibility to it.

Well, it's legit alright. Pretty damned funny too.

NOT WORKSAFE

[Remember to notify laughing boy, T² Phasing Hell Host]

[ 09. April 2010, 22:32: Message edited by: Think² ]
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
I need to wash my eyeballs out and cleanse my history and cookies after that link.

(it is pretty funny, that bit at the bottom though!)
 
Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This was found on the internet. As with much else on the 'net, authenticity is unknown. But it's got a certain plausibility to it.

Well, it's legit alright. Pretty damned funny too.

NOT WORKSAFE

[Remember to notify laughing boy, T² Phasing Hell Host]

Apologies...didn't even think about that.
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
Back to the Phelpses and Exploding Mines!. Their picket schedule (which I suppose isn't really work safe either) has them swinging into West Virginia to gloat over (among other things) the tragic mine tragedy there.
quote:
04/09/2010
09:30 AM - 10:00 AM
Whitesville, WV

Performance Coal Company Coal River Road WBC to picket the Performance Coal Company, sight of a mine explosion, to show West Virginians their transgressions ... Now He has sent another explosion to repay them to their face for the way they have mistreated His people ... WBC returns to remind West Virginians that there is God and He is cursing them with exploding mines! 2 Kings 19:7 Behold, I will send a blast upon him, and he shall hear a rumor, and shall return to his own land; and I will cause him to fall by the sword in his own land.


 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Their picket schedule

Wow, I never realised they were so inclusive! They don't just hate fags, they hate Jews and Catholics and miners and Obama...
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Their picket schedule

They came to Blacksburg yesterday and were heavily outnumbered by local counter-protesters.

Moo
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This was found on the internet. As with much else on the 'net, authenticity is unknown. But it's got a certain plausibility to it.

I looked it up, so you don't have to. There are 2 KKK website that come up at the top in google and this is the 2nd one. It does INDEED have this on the webpage. I had to know and so I tried to keep my lunch down and took the plunge...

[edited for grammar.]

[ 10. April 2010, 20:15: Message edited by: duchess ]
 
Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Wow, I never realised they were so inclusive! They don't just hate fags, they hate Jews and Catholics and miners and Obama...

And Bon Jovi.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Crossing over with another Hell thread, the Phelpses are now planning on picketing Constance McMillan's graduation. I wonder if the parents of Itawamba County will be chastened by this fairly ugly mirror of their own behavior or if the parallels will be lost on them?
 
Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
I noticed this bit in that linked article:
quote:
“WBC will picket the graduation of Itawamba Agricultural High School to remind the parents, teachers and students of this nation that God said 'Thou shall not lie with mankind, as with womankind, it is abomination,'” the church said in announcing the protest.
But these are two women, so there's actually no mankind lying with mankind involved.

And these people have the gall to call themselves lawyers!
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
The only surprise for me is that it took them so long to get a press release out about this. I was half expecting them to picket the prom itself.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
It cost the town of Blacksburg $5579 to cover the cost of the Phelps's demonstrating here.

Here is the news story.

Moo
 
Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :
 
So there's how to drive 'em nuts: send the bill to WBC.

When they don't pay, sue them.

It should be on the same principle that permits state parks to recover search-and-rescue expenses when some hiker in T-shirt & sandals tries to climb a snow-capped peak solo sans map, compass, water, or food.

[ 29. April 2010, 22:45: Message edited by: Apocalypso ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Billing the WBC would be good.

Might also be interesting to track the source of their funding. Travel isn't cheap.
 
Posted by HoosierNan (# 91) on :
 
They are financed, according to the information that I have seen, from lawsuits. When someone irate tries to push them off the sidewalk or whatever, they go to court for "damages."
 
Posted by teddybear (# 7842) on :
 
Topeka gets back at the Phelps with this annual Millon Fag March. This year Fred's son Nate will be speaking about what it was like growing up in the Phelps family. Unfortunately, I'll be out of town this weekend and can't attend.

[codefux]

[ 03. May 2010, 02:45: Message edited by: comet ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Not sure if this has been posted before. A video by Nate Phelps.

There are others.
 
Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Not sure if this has been posted before. A video by Nate Phelps.

There are others.

And a transcript of his talk is available too. Horrifying and moving. "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble ..."
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Crossing over with another Hell thread, the Phelpses are now planning on picketing Constance McMillan's graduation. I wonder if the parents of Itawamba County will be chastened by this fairly ugly mirror of their own behavior or if the parallels will be lost on them?

I'm betting the latter.
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Jestocost:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Not sure if this has been posted before. A video by Nate Phelps.

There are others.

And a transcript of his talk is available too. Horrifying and moving. "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble ..."
Shit. I knew that family was seriously fucked up, but reading that first hand account sent shivers down my spine.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
I'm pretty sure the Phelps clan will be picketing Heaven for daring to forgive all sorts of unsavory sinners. And I hope Matthew Shepard will be there grinning at them from within the pearly gates.
 
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
Imagine him there at the Gate covering Peter's break.
 
Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
Imagine him there at the Gate covering Peter's break.

[Killing me]
 
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :
 
Phelps was according to CNN a civil rights lawyer back in the 1960s . What happened ? The world wonders [Angel]
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
A series of small strokes?

That's not exactly a joke.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
"Nightline" just did a good piece on Phelps' son. (There isn't a direct link. Look for "Hating the Haters", about 6 min. long.) Seems like a nice guy.

Evidently, Fred abused his wife and all the kids. Shirley (another grown kid) acknowledged some of that, though she thought of it as discipline. I don't think I've seen Shirley before. Quite a piece of work

[Votive]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
Imagine him there at the Gate covering Peter's break.

...and God meeting Fred in the guise of a beautiful drag queen. [Smile]

Just long enough to make Her point and have a little talk with Fred; not so long that Fred will implode.
 
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
"Nightline" just did a good piece on Phelps' son. (There isn't a direct link. Look for "Hating the Haters", about 6 min. long.) Seems like a nice guy.

Evidently, Fred abused his wife and all the kids. Shirley (another grown kid) acknowledged some of that, though she thought of it as discipline. I don't think I've seen Shirley before. Quite a piece of work

[Votive]

And the authorities have not prosecuted him for the abuse of his children because ?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Think2--

I wondered that myself. Maybe none of the kids have spoken up until recently? I don't know what the statutes of limitations are there.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
And the authorities have not prosecuted him for the abuse of his children because ?

Probably because they're all so brainwashed and/or terrified that none of them will dare testify against him.
 
Posted by Rossweisse. (# 2349) on :
 
I'm sure there's a statute of limitations; I know that evidence of abuse must be presented before such complaints are taken seriously, for obvious reasons.

My pen pal Shirley is one sick puppy. (But we knew that.)
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
I saw some footage recently of Shirley Phelps salivating over the idea of so many people going to Hell, Ross, and I Thought Of You. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
Aw! My friend Fred is coming to Portland!

Unfortunately, I've already got an out of town guest that weekend, so I won't be able to go see him and let him know how much he's done for me.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
You know, I wonder. Surely he has a home church he spends some Sundays in. A parade of taiko drummers past the church on a Sunday would be a great show of Japanese cultural heritage.
 
Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
Hmmm, I wonder if there are some traditional hymns that could be sung along with taiko drumming? Maybe Onward Christian Soldiers or A Mighty Fortress Is Our God? Y'know, those old four-square conservative, somewhat militant ones {that should in theory appeal to the Phelps crowd} and tend to encourage everyone to sing full-blast?

I'm just really enjoying the picture of a bunch of people singing their hearts out (Christian or not) with the lovely taiko drumming in support. Though the thought of a Phelps paying any attention except to look for spin opportunities is even less likely than anyone managing to pull off the taiko/Christian hymnfest event.

[fixed code]

[ 17. May 2010, 17:13: Message edited by: jlg ]
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
Weren't they greeted somewhere rather recently by a large group singing "Jesus Loves Me, This I Know"?
[Big Grin]

[ 17. May 2010, 19:45: Message edited by: Pigwidgeon ]
 
Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
"Jesus Loves Me" doesn't mess with taiko drumming, though.

ETA: Nor with what appears to be the Phelps version of Christianity.

[ 18. May 2010, 17:21: Message edited by: jlg ]
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jlg:
ETA: Nor with what appears to be the Phelps version of Christianity.

I think that was the whole point.
[Snigger]
 
Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :
 
The Phelps have a version of Christianity?

And here I thought they had started The Church of the Perverse Parody.
 
Posted by urbanbumpkin (# 13505) on :
 
http://www.thenoseonyourface.com/religion/fred-phelps-to-sell-hatin-hotties-of-westboro-calendar-to-pay-damages/

Not work safe, but very funny!
 
Posted by Rossweisse. (# 2349) on :
 
Shirley Phelps-Roper's god is having none of that love stuff, and if you quote the Gospel of John to her she just gets angry.

I like the "hotties"...
 
Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on :
 
Their website ("Welcome, depraved sons and daughters of Adam ...") contains an article that carefully and with deep scholastic insight unpicks the commonly mistaken interpretation of John 3.16. Maybe Shirley gets bad tempered because she put a lot of thought into it and no one seems to have read it.
 
Posted by The Exegesis Fairy (# 9588) on :
 
Worrying, isn't it? Not to mention she apparently (I looked it up) has the support of the Strong's concordance. (Not sure if she knows, it's probably evil too.) See definition 8(b) here.

Oh noes!

God loves everyone: the greatest lie ever told!

That one did raise a smile.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
As an update from a (now closed) crossover thread, Constance McMillan, (a.k.a. "the prom lesbian") has apparently been run out of town.

quote:
McMillen had said she faced hostility on campus and in the community in the aftermath of her actions.

“There was a lot of stuff going on at Itawamba. It was just really hard to do my homework, so I transferred to Jackson to get my diploma,” McMillen said. “There’s a large gay community there. All the teachers are very nice and very helpful.”

Despite this, the Phelps clan is going ahead with their plans to picket the graduation at Ms. McMillan's former high school, on the premise that the town didn't do enough discourage homosexuality.

quote:
Meanwhile, officials in Itawamba County are preparing for a weekend protest at the district’s Saturday graduation. The Westboro Baptist Church’s website said members of the fundamentalist church would demonstrate in Fulton from 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. The church says parents did not teach their children to condemn homosexuality.

Shirley Phelps-Roper, a member and attorney for the Topeka, Kan.-based church, said the group will protest peacefully on a public sidewalk.

Apparently a campaign of discrimination and harrassment is regarded as insufficient by the Westboro Baptist Church.
 
Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Jestocost:
Their website ("Welcome, depraved sons and daughters of Adam ...") contains an article that carefully and with deep scholastic insight unpicks the commonly mistaken interpretation of John 3.16. Maybe Shirley gets bad tempered because she put a lot of thought into it and no one seems to have read it.

If she really wanted it read, she wouldn't have posted in a font taken from the bottom of the eye-exam poster combined with palest blue on a white background.

Can you say "Let's make it really hard to read and then complain that no one reads it"?
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Apparently a campaign of discrimination and harrassment is regarded as insufficient by the Westboro Baptist Church.

Hey, it doesn't matter what you or your community did, it just matters how much media attention the WBC can get for picketing you.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
And now, from the "Hell has frozen over!" department, Ann Coulter has condemned the Phelpses!

{No, I don't read her column. [Biased] Given the John 3:16 development, I did a search to see if there was a "God loves Fred Phelps" site, and came across a blog that quoted the article above.}
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :
 
Guess who's supposed to be coming to our place Sunday. And guess who's head usher at 11:00!
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
OMG, Sine! [Killing me]
 
Posted by LostinChelsea (# 5305) on :
 
The Phelpses threatened to show up in our town for a military funeral, causing much local uproar. I assumed it was an empty threat just to get attention, and that -- thank God -- turned out to be the case.

Turns out that all the extra uproar meant an impressive turnout along the route between church and cemetery. Ended up being a meaningful day for the community.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
So, Sine, what are you going to wear? And you are, of course, going to get parishioners to welcome the Phelpses and escort them into the service? (Forcefully, if necessary.)
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
We want pictures! And lots of details!

Ack, I think I'm jealous.

Ew.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
Guess who's supposed to be coming to our place Sunday. And guess who's head usher at 11:00!

Wear the suspenders! Wear the suspenders!
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Jestocost:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Not sure if this has been posted before. A video by Nate Phelps.

There are others.

And a transcript of his talk is available too. Horrifying and moving. "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble ..."
That's got to be one of the most sickening things I've ever read. I hope he finds peace.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
Guess who's supposed to be coming to our place Sunday. And guess who's head usher at 11:00!

Wear the suspenders! Wear the suspenders!
Are these perhaps rainbow suspenders? [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
Oh, the suspense!
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :
 
This is too funny...they picketed a non-denominational mega-church of a similar name out in the suburbs which while I’m sure is perfectly nice in it’s own way isn’t exactly the most liberal and/or gay friendly place in town. They must have been quite puzzled to have found themselves picketed, as well as two Baptist churches. I understand there were four picketers plus a child.

Anyway we were all disappointed, especially since we had a very good turnout at 11:00. Of course that could have been the Pentecost baptisms, but I doubt that explains the two exceptionally good looking young men who signed the visitors book, which proves that every cloud indeed has a silver lining.

I picked one of our gay couples to be the oblation bearers at the Offertory in a sort of F.U. to the ‘reverend’ Phelps and his ilk. Pity they weren’t there to see it.

(I went with tan seersucker suit and green & white bow tie as my confrontation outfit. Pity they weren’t able to see it either. It was much admired.)
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
Oh what a bummer! They must have gotten lost.
 
Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
Guess who's supposed to be coming to our place Sunday. And guess who's head usher at 11:00!

Wear the suspenders! Wear the suspenders!
The 'British English' meaning of this is both disturbing and quite appropriate...
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
(I went with tan seersucker suit and green & white bow tie as my confrontation outfit. Pity they weren’t able to see it either. It was much admired.)

Sine's posts often contain an elegance redolent of an era of gaslight and spats. I've always pictured him at the Cathedral on a Sunday morning in a pearl-grey morning coat, noiselessly signaling to his minions with a perfectly gloved hand.

Now I learn he wears seersucker before Memorial Day. I'm CRUSHED, I tell you.
 
Posted by Laud-able (# 9896) on :
 
Tangent upon tangent:

The writer of this article suggests that in the South it is Easter that is the correct starting date for the wearing of white clothes (and by extension, I suppose, summer clothing).
 
Posted by marmot (# 479) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
(I went with tan seersucker suit and green & white bow tie as my confrontation outfit. Pity they weren’t able to see it either. It was much admired.)

Sine's posts often contain an elegance redolent of an era of gaslight and spats. I've always pictured him at the Cathedral on a Sunday morning in a pearl-grey morning coat, noiselessly signaling to his minions with a perfectly gloved hand.
That's iGeek. He accompanied me to Flausa and Alan's wedding in just such attire.
 
Posted by Alfred E. Neuman (# 6855) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
I went with tan seersucker suit and green & white bow tie as my confrontation outfit...

You have got to be kidding. I would think black leather and a garrot more appropriate - balaclava optional.
 
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :
 
At least we can keep Fred & co out of Canada.
I believe he has been turned backed at the border on several occassions. I honestly think the man is crazy not to mention controllin sand just plain nasty . If he was all the only example of a believer I saw I would run the other way. Peace all [Angel]
 
Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
The latest... this is just too cool.

The Phelpsies are going to protest Comicion!

Here's one small article about it

And here's another
 
Posted by Mad Cat (# 9104) on :
 
God hates Batman?!
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
It's the big package in Batman's underpants that excites the fags and so angers Fred P. (He is probably jealous because his is all shrivelled up).
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
Shipmates may be divided on everything from brands of toothpaste to the existance of God, but at least we can all seem to rally around a common disgust in Fred Phelps.

He's obviously a gift. Allelujah.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Do you think they'd protest if Chick Tracts were on the comic book roster?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Do you think they'd protest if Chick Tracts were on the comic book roster?

Somewhere in the Phreddies bizarre doctrine I'm sure Jack Chick is designated a "fag-enabler".
 
Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
For what it's worth, my computer geek agnostic husband (who claims to keep up with the news on-line) is totally oblivious to Fred Phelps.

When I told him about Phelps and the Comic-con thing, he simply gave a slight shrug of "hey that's stupid" and then moved on with his life.

So I'm thinking that if the various Christians who disagree with Phelps would do the same (even if they have to do it in public when Phelps swoops down upon them), we could kill his campaign.

So here's the new motto: "Phelps? Westboro Baptist? Never heard of them."
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
The comics community is suggesting donating money to various charities in honor of Mr. Phelps. The campaign is entitled God Loves Batman.
 
Posted by marmot (# 479) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
Shipmates may be divided on everything from brands of toothpaste to the existance of God, but at least we can all seem to rally around a common disgust in Fred Phelps.

He's obviously a gift. Allelujah.

My feelings, exactly. If Phelps is what it takes, then go forth, my Legion of Bad Monkeys!
 
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :
 
Just looked at Phelps diatribe on Jn 3:16. She is WRONG. Her concept of God is sick beyond belief . What they are doing is defaming the Gospel message of Gods love. They are even offensive to agnostics & those who say there is no God . Honestly if I had to sit on a bus with either and athiest or Fred Phelphs give me the athiest please. [Smile] [Angel]
 
Posted by St. Stephen the Stoned (# 9841) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
The latest... this is just too cool.

The Phelpsies are going to protest Comicion!

Here's one small article about it

And here's another

Despite being advised to ignore the Phelpsoids, it seems that Comicon attenders staged
some kind of counter-demonstration .

These people just won't do as they're told!
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
My favorite sign was "The Cylons destroyed the 12 Colonies for your sins!"
 
Posted by Wilfried (# 12277) on :
 
More pics of said counter protest here.

Absurdity is the only sensible response.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
[Overused]

Do NOT fuck with nerds.
 
Posted by Alfred E. Neuman (# 6855) on :
 
oOOOoh! A protest sign for my sig!
 
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
Just looked at Phelps diatribe on Jn 3:16. She is WRONG. Her concept of God is sick beyond belief . What they are doing is defaming the Gospel message of Gods love. They are even offensive to agnostics & those who say there is no God . Honestly if I had to sit on a bus with either and athiest or Fred Phelphs give me the athiest please. [Smile] [Angel]

Give ME the Kalashnikov (set to stun, naturally)
 
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :
 
Sorry Jahlove but an AK 47 would be a waste on WBC . One must allow them the possibility of repenting for their attutudes, heaven knows I have to every so often, or more frequnetly. Besides the outcome would be a term in prision , and they aren't worth it. [Smile] [Angel]
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wilfried:
More pics of said counter protest here.

Absurdity is the only sensible response.

That made my WEEK.
 
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :
 
good on ya, fanguys'n'gals [Smile]

It's given me a new sig an' all
 
Posted by St. Stephen the Stoned (# 9841) on :
 
Another report here, with more pics and an interview.
Sheesh.
 
Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
[Overused]

Do NOT fuck with nerds.

Preach it, sister!

I hope this (along with the fund-raising schemes cited elsewhere) inspires anyone targeted by Phelps to fight back at the same idiotic level.

Since they seem to get press coverage anyway (which is what they want), it seems the only way to fight back is to make them look like the idiots they are by throwing their tactics back in their face.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
I'm green with envy.

Does anyone know if there's a place you can sign up to ask Phred & Co. to come picket you? I can think of ANY NUMBER of great games we could play with them, if they'd only show up. Of course, they missed us out, last time they were in town. Shy little flowers.

Maybe we could start a website.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Life gets better. Apparently Phred & Co. went to Dallas recently, protesting outside numerous places, including the Holocaust museum, a couple of churches, and a resource center that helps people with HIV/AIDS. The resource center turned it into a fundraiser (think: protest-a-thon, per-minute sponsorship) and raised $11,000 toward food prep equipment. Read here.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Life gets better. Apparently Phred & Co. went to Dallas recently, protesting outside numerous places, including the Holocaust museum, a couple of churches, and a resource center that helps people with HIV/AIDS. The resource center turned it into a fundraiser (think: protest-a-thon, per-minute sponsorship) and raised $11,000 toward food prep equipment. Read here.

[Cool]
 
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :
 
There seems to be more Phelph like preacher s popping up w/their anti everything but what we say we believe attitudes . They don't realize what damage they do the cause of Christ. About even w/paedophile priests.
 
Posted by Columbus (# 15792) on :
 
I remember once watching a vid of a debate between Fred Phelps and another well known Christian. The subject was "God Hates Some People", or something like that. Fred took the affirmative, unsurprisingly. He won the debate, hands down, no questions asked. He had Bible verses, he could explain them, Joe Modern Christian(I don't rememeber the name of the loser of this debate)had nothing but his own opinion. He had to explain why his opinion contradicted the Bible, and then explain why that was OK. He had to put his modern morality in contraposition to what the Bible clearly says, and then try to make out that his was a Christian belief system.

He got trashed, thoroughly and humiliatingly, because Fred Phelps accurately reflects Biblical teachings.

Tom
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Columbus:
...Fred Phelps accurately reflects Biblical teachings.

Tom

[Eek!] [Confused] [Disappointed]
and, finally
[Projectile]
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Columbus:
He got trashed, thoroughly and humiliatingly, because Fred Phelps accurately reflects Biblical teachings.

You and Fred must be reading a different Bible than the one I've got.
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
Columbus informs us that he is
quote:
an unrepentant faggot
And then goes on to tell us that
quote:
Fred Phelps accurately reflects Biblical teachings.
I have no qualms about the first statement (modulo the politics that may attach to the word faggot), but the second is seriously fucked up, by which I mean wrong and fucked up—and wrong.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
TSA, you may have missed the fact that Columbus is a religion-hating fuckwit* who doesn't actually believe a word of the Bible, but if he did believe it he'd believe it the same way Ol' Phred does.

*= you know the sort. "some religious people don't like people like me, therefore all religions throughout all time are evil and wrong". It must have been quite literally weeks since we've had one of those signing up to have a pop at us...
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Columbus:
<snip>
... because Fred Phelps accurately reflects Biblical teachings.

Tom

Even a warped mirror reflects accurately within its own constructs! See non-Euclidean geometry.

If the Phelpsian notion that God is punishing a Fag-enabling America through events like 9/11 and the war dead in Iraq and Afghanistan is in any way consistent with Christianity, could someone please let me know.
 
Posted by Columbus (# 15792) on :
 
No need to take potshots at the messenger, guys. I'm just describing a video I watched on godhatesfags.com, at least ten years ago. I just went back to god hates the world dot com to see if I could find it again, but I don't think it is still there.

The fact is that Fred made a very strong case that God does hate many people, backing it up with long lists of verses from God's Own Bible, the KJV. He was quite proud of it, and gave a full transcript putting all the verses he cited into context.
Many of the arguments he made can still be found here:

http://www.godhatestheworld.com/common/html/john316.html

Obviously, what Fred does is choose which verses he prefers and places more importance on them, then minimizes the importance of other conflicting verses.
But doesn't everybody do that to some extent?

I'd even go a step further. It looks to me like, given the last several centuries of wars, colonialism, and slavery, Fred's view is a good bit more "traditional" than most modern views of Christianity.

Tom
 
Posted by lanky_cynic (# 15728) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Columbus:
I'd even go a step further.
[/QB]

Preferably off a cliff, if you're agreeing with Ol' Phelpsy.

Funniest WBC moment I've seen on TV: Kieth Allen (Brit actor, now known as being father of singer Lilly Allen) asking the Phelpses which one was the illegitimate grandson.
I don't think I've ever seen a silence that tense.
 
Posted by Columbus (# 15792) on :
 
Quoting someone is hardly the same as agreeing with him.

Fred and I have some fundamental disagreements, including but not limited to, the existence of an omnipotent Being whose plans can be seriously thwarted by some bags of sensient protoplasm He Himself made, exactly as they are.

Tom
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
Marvin, you are so right. I offer my apologies. With the yawn-inducing Yorick carrying Columbus's water for him I didn't bother to look to see the evidence on page two of his Purgatory thread. I promise I will not FtT, even when presented with flammatory language such as faggot.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Columbus:
No need to take potshots at the messenger, guys. I'm just describing a video I watched on godhatesfags.com, at least ten years ago.

Don't lie to us. We can scroll up.

quote:
Originally posted by Columbus:
He got trashed, thoroughly and humiliatingly, because Fred Phelps accurately reflects Biblical teachings.

That's not just describing a video. It's making a judgment on its contents. And we're disagreeing with that judgment. You're not just the messenger here, you're the message.
 
Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
TSA, thanks for the link.
 
Posted by Columbus (# 15792) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Columbus:
No need to take potshots at the messenger, guys. I'm just describing a video I watched on godhatesfags.com, at least ten years ago.

Don't lie to us. We can scroll up.


I can't be bothered with lying to anyone. I tried to find the video so you could all describe your own reactions, but I couldn't. I posted a link to the best representation I could find. I've noticed that absolutely nobody responded to it.

At this point in the discussion I suppose I should call you an asshole or something. Hellish rules permit it and the forum culture seems to expect it. But I just think you are mistaken. I've made much worse mistakes. So, how about you try to explain to me why you think I am mistaken, knowing that I already think you are and will back up my opinions?

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Columbus:
He got trashed, thoroughly and humiliatingly, because Fred Phelps accurately reflects Biblical teachings.

That's not just describing a video. It's making a judgment on its contents. And we're disagreeing with that judgment. You're not just the messenger here, you're the message.

Sorry buddy, I am describing a video. A christian has a very unpopular, but soundly Bible based, opinion. That is the judgement I am making. I am not the message, I am the messenger. I am quoting a christian who quotes the Bible which quotes God.

Wanna hear a good quote from a white Protestant christian about why black people can't go to heaven? Check out StormFront.org and search for Rev. Mark Bannon.

I don't have to lie about any of this stuff. I can quote Christians about Christianity all day long.

Tom
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
"Sorry buddy, I am describing a video. A christian has a very unpopular, but soundly Bible based, opinion. That is the judgement I am making."

MAKING A JUDGMENT is not DESCRIBING A MOVIE. Is English your first language?
 
Posted by St. Stephen the Stoned (# 9841) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Columbus:

...Fred Phelps accurately reflects Biblical teachings.

Tom



and

quote:
Originally posted by Columbus:

Sorry buddy, I am describing a video. A christian has a very unpopular, but soundly Bible based, opinion. That is the judgement I am making. I am not the message, I am the messenger. I am quoting a christian who quotes the Bible which quotes God.

Wanna hear a good quote from a white Protestant christian about why black people can't go to heaven? Check out StormFront.org and search for Rev. Mark Bannon.

I don't have to lie about any of this stuff. I can quote Christians about Christianity all day long.

Tom

Hello Tom

So your purpose here on SoF is to have a whack at Christianity by quoting the most obnoxious dickheads in Christendom and claiming that they represent mainstream Christian belief.

Best of luck with that one, mate.

Hello and Goodbye, probably.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
guess what people....

one detected
 
Posted by St. Stephen the Stoned (# 9841) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
guess what people....

one detected

So it's Goodbye Columbus.

(Can I be the first to say that?)

[ 08. August 2010, 19:22: Message edited by: St. Stephen the Stoned ]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Columbus:
<snip>

I don't have to lie about any of this stuff. I can quote Christians about Christianity all day long.

Tom

If you're going spend all day quoting Christians about Christianity I'm sure some immigrant will be happy to do whatever work you're supposed to be doing.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by St. Stephen the Stoned:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
guess what people....

one detected

So it's Goodbye Columbus.

(Can I be the first to say that?)

I've actually had that phrase in my head for several days.
[Big Grin]
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Columbus:
with long lists of verses from God's Own Bible, the KJV.

Ah, yes, the KJV. Which fell out of Jesus' pocket as he ascended into Heaven. It was so kind of him to ensure his words were written in red, wasn't it?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Sioni, ROTFL!!!

Spiffy--but surely the Jefferson Bible is easier? No pesky searching for red. TJ did all the cutting and pasting for us!
[Two face]
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
I wouldn't assume that Columbus knows who Thomas Jefferson is, seeing as he lived a couple hundred years before the latter worthy personage.
 
Posted by JB (# 1776) on :
 
It's a bit unclear, but apparently someone with an industrial-sized tear gas dispenser sprayed the protesters (and mourners, and cop) at a funeral for a Marine protested by the Westboro Baptist Church.
 
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 
Rule #1: Always be sure a cop isn't in the line of fire when you're drive by pepper spraying a group.

Phelps supposedly holds with Calvinism that some are pre-ordained before birth to be saved and everyone else is condemned to hell. Frankly, if he represents the "saved" I'd prefer the company in hell. Fortunately, I think he's dead wrong on just about everything he believes (it ain't Christianity he believes in) so I don't have to worry about that.
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
More here.
 
Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
Oh lord. It was just a matter of time before something like this happened and everyone concerned is just lucky it was nothing worse than pepper spray. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
I understand First Amendment rights. They need to be protected, no doubt. That being said, something is wrong when a group gets to spread their hate filled message in a way that hurts the families of daughters and sons who have died for their country like that, and the group does NOT get a notably negative reaction.

Pepper spray in front of witnesses is just a bad idea. Co-ordinated lawsuits for intentional infliction of emotional distress that drives them into bankruptcy, is a good idea.
 
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :
 
Not even Phelphs derserved to be pepper sprayed . But he does seem to ask for the abuse doesn't he ?
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
If you stand up in the United States of America and say something, it's your First Amendment right to say it.

But I also have the right to stand up and call you a jackass and tell you to sit your fool self down.

In doing so, I am in no way infringing your First Amendment rights, I am just exercising my own.

[ 31. August 2010, 21:11: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
 
Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
But you can't attack me or pepper spray me.

Having said that, I do tend to think, like Tortuf seemed to intimate, that common civility should be legally allowed. As has been done (and debated) with respect to the anti-abortion demonstrations.

You are allowed to say your piece, but you are also expected to maintain a respectful distance so as not to create a public situation which interferes with the person who is trying to go about his or her legal business.

I do hope the Supreme Court will tell the Phelps that they need to keep their First Amendment rights at a respectful distance.

Sadly, the stupid Citizens United decision doesn't give me much hope.
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
Not even Phelphs derserved to be pepper sprayed . But he does seem to ask for the abuse doesn't he ?

Deserve? That asshole and his whole family of assholes deserve quite a lot of bad things.

Put yourselves in the position of a grieving parent, burying the child they love. Fred et al. show up to tell you God killed your child because of homosexuality. In a fair world a group of very large men with baseball bats would be able to come after them to teach them a lesson in civility.

We do not live in a fair world. We live in a world where wingnuts like that do the things they do. We keep chaos from seeping into our world because we (most of us, anyway) agree to follow a common set of rules that are enforced by our society. Sometimes those rules keep us from giving into urges that seem justified at the time, but which could easily be the leading edge of chaos.

It is when the so called leaders of our societies give into primal urges of hatred that we all suffer a loss of our humanity. This is why the opposition to the Mosques in New York and Murfreesboro is so sad.
 
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :
 
I wouldn't consider Fred Phelps and company as leaders of anything . They are vile disgusting people . However that does not m,ean that we have to act the same way. [Angel] [Smile]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
I wouldn't consider Fred Phelps and company as leaders of anything . They are vile disgusting people . However that does not mean that we have to act the same way. [Angel] [Smile]

Amen.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Guess who's going to take over the burning of the Koran?

And they've already done it once.
 
Posted by Rossweisse. (# 2349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Guess who's going to take over the burning of the Koran?

And they've already done it once.

One loses points for copying someone else's sick idea, it seems to me. It's too little, too late. Try again, Fredo!
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
Turning WBC press releases into poetry.
 
Posted by Rossweisse. (# 2349) on :
 
Oh, that's brilliant, Spiffy! Thank you!
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
I just heard on the radio that the family of Tyler Clementi has not announced plans for his funeral. I immediately thought of old Phred -- let's pray that Phred and his family do not show up and harrass this grieving family. [Votive]


(The students who filmed and posted the video of Tyler deserve their own Hell thread.)
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
[Votive] Tyler and Clementi family.

I hope the filmers get the book thrown at them.


Has anyone ever tried distracting or gently waylaying the Freds on their way to an event? (Within legal bounds.)
 
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 
There have been several suicides recently of young gay and lesbian youth, one as young as 13, who were bullied relentlessly to the point they killed themselves. Kids have a habit of bullying, but the fervor with which they go after their gay classmates is an indication of the hatred all face every day. I pray Phred doesn't find out about any of the funerals. [Votive]
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
There have been several suicides recently of young gay and lesbian youth, one as young as 13, who were bullied relentlessly to the point they killed themselves. Kids have a habit of bullying, but the fervor with which they go after their gay classmates is an indication of the hatred all face every day. I pray Phred doesn't find out about any of the funerals. [Votive]

Absolutely. My concern is that this case is getting so much publicity, and Phred does love high profile funerals.
 
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Absolutely. My concern is that this case is getting so much publicity, and Phred does love high profile funerals.

A very spot on concern. If Phred can't get to the most high profile case, he may target one of the others and make it high profile. The fact there have been so many lately means there are too many like Phred out there, only they teach it to their children out of public sight.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Fred can only make a low-profile funeral into a high-profile funeral through the aiding and abetting of the f***ing media. If they would just ignore that scum, he'd dry up and wither away. He feeds on attention as a tick feeds on blood.
 
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :
 
They were here yesterday at a soldier's funeral, carrying signs that said "God Hate Soldiers."

(No!! God. Does. Not.)

Anyway, our state has a law that protesters have to stand 200 feet away at funerals (law was brought about by these folks), and the Patriot Guard was on hand to rev their motors so the chants couldn't be heard.

Don't forget the Phelps a Thon web site for contributions toward all the things the Westoboro folks are protesting.

sabine

[ 03. October 2010, 13:34: Message edited by: sabine ]
 
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :
 
I se they will be before the US Supreme Court today pleading freedom of speech. Since what they utter i


I see that they are before the US Supreme Court pleading 1st amendment rights for their speech. Only in the US could this happen [Smile] [Angel]
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
This page is a link to the several briefs filed in the case. You have to scroll down.

I will be reading the Phelps brief and may come back with some choice lines.

Here is the link to the Phelps brief for the masochists among you.

Let me start out with a fascinating revelation. Quoting from their Questions Presented section:
quote:
Whether Petitioner’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress must fail because
WBC’s loose, figurative, hyperbolic speech, which no reasonable reader could interpret as stating actual facts, is public-issue speech (and because Petitioner is not a private figure).

Apparently, they don't want us to believe the shit they say.

Hmmmm.
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
quote:
The content, form and context show WBC’s
speech is public and thus protected. For an additional reason WBC’s words are protected, which is because of the type of words. They are hyperbolic, figurative, loose, hysterical opinion. By their content, form and context, no reasonable reader could conclude they contain provable facts, but rather are clearly opinion, spoken about facts available equally to everyone.


 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Tortuf,

Many thanks for the link. But it does appear that the statement you copy is picked up directly from the Applicant's Brief.It is not the statement of the Respondents.
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
These are the questions presented by Snyder:
quote:

I. Whether the First Amendment Permits Mr.
Snyder, a Private Figure Plaintiff Who Had No
Connection to the “Issues” Cited by the Phelpses,
To Seek Judicial Recourse for the Harm Intentionally
Inflicted upon Him by the Phelpses’ Tortious
Conduct?
II. Whether Mr. Snyder Should Not Be Required to
Prove That the Phelpses’ Speech Could “Reasonably
Be Interpreted as Stating Actual Facts” in Order to
Recover for Intentional Infliction of Emotional
Distress?
III. Whether Mr. Snyder, as a Member of a Captive
Audience Mourning the Loss of His Son at a Funeral,
Is Entitled to a Remedy for the Phelpses’ Intentional
Invasion of His Privacy?
IV. Whether Mr. Snyder’s First Amendment Rights to
Free Exercise of Religion and Peaceable Assembly
Should Outweigh the Phelpses’ First Amendment
Right to Target Hateful Speech at Him During His
Son’s Funeral?


 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
These are the questions presented by Phelps:
quote:

QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. Whether Petitioner’s claim for intentional infliction
of emotional distress must fail because it is
based on speech by Westboro Baptist Church that
was on public issues, and was not false statements
of fact (and because Petitioner is not a
private figure).
2. Whether Petitioner’s claim for intentional infliction
of emotional distress must fail because
WBC’s loose, figurative, hyperbolic speech, which
no reasonable reader could interpret as stating
actual facts, is public-issue speech (and because
Petitioner is not a private figure).
3. Whether Petitioner’s invasion of privacy claim
must fail because he was not a member of a
captive audience, and even if he was, Westboro
Baptist Church’s speech occurred well outside
any zone of privacy the Court might ever recognize
in a public funeral.
4. Whether Petitioner’s invasion of privacy claim
must fail because Westboro Baptist Church did
not interfere with or disrupt the public funeral of
his son, so it is not necessary to weigh Westboro
Baptist Church’s right to engage in religious
speech on public right-of-ways against any privacy
right the Court might find in a public
funeral.


 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
You will note that my first quote came from the Phelps brief.

In fact, I did not attempt to read Mr. Snyder's brief until Gee D's comment. It would therefore be hard to have pulled a quote from his brief by mistake.

[ 07. October 2010, 00:30: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Tortuf , What I meant is that the statement in the Phelps brief has been copied from the Snyder brief - see at page 17, paragraph 23, which contains portions of the Court of Appeal reasons, where that Court uses the precise words in the Phelps brief.

There had been some publicity here about various incidents involving the Phelpses; the summary of evidence shows them as irrational hatemongers, intent upon the infliction of distress. It's not surprising that the jury found as it did.

[ 07. October 2010, 01:44: Message edited by: Gee D ]
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
No. It is not. They are a hateful group of (expletive deleted) nasty people hiding under the cloak of the Constitution.

Heaven help me, I wish they didn't have a point.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Ther is an enormous difference between freedom of speech as a right on the one hand, and intentional infliction of nervous shock on the other. While there is, in NSW, no bill of rights, I'm reasonably sure that any similar prohibition here would be read as still allowing a claim for damages, either for defamation or for intentional or negligent infliction of nervous shock. The courts would probably also uphold any criminal law where a consequence of the exercise of the right would be to incite violence.

Obviously, there is a wealth of US jurisprudence on the extent of the protection of the Bill of Rights amendments. As a complete outsider, I would read the effect of the First Amendment as a prohibition on legislation restricting freedom of speech. It does not appear that Mr Sndyer relied upon any legislation, but upon a common law, non-statutory, cause of action; I find it hard to see how the Constitutional protection has been infringed.
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
The Constitution addresses action by the government. If I court says "you owe Mr. Snyder X amount of dollars because you intentionally inflicted emotional harm" it is an act of a governmental entity.

The Constitution is not limited to legislation.

How that line can be drawn is an interesting question. Personally, I think they have gone over the line and then some. That could be in part because I think they are raving lunatics who are intent upon personally harming people in order to further their insane vision of G*d.

On the other hand, if they can be restrained, how might that argument be used by the nutters opposing the mosque here in Murfreesboro to help stop the construction of a mosque? Clearly, the proposed mosque is hurting several peoples' finer sensibilities. (OK, it is really pissing off the antediluvian redneck paranoid set.) Shouldn't that be enough to stop the mosque?

You see, I fear the camel's nose under the tent flap.
 
Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
You see, I fear the camel's nose under the tent flap.

Which is why the First Amendment is such an amazing thing.

And the Founding Fathers put it first, which also says a lot. As much as we sometimes like to think they were all mature and sober men back then, I sincerely doubt the people involved saw it that way. But they managed to pull up their Big Girl Panties and admit that one man's idiot is another man's wise man, so if any of the other things they argued about and wrote were to work, everyone needed to be free to say his (and later, her) piece in public.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Thanks Tortuf for your comments about the breadth of the First Amendment; that's somthing that as an outsider I had not picked up.

Is a possible answer that which applies here in defamation cases - there is freedom of speech (subject to the incitement to violence to which I referred) but if the exercise of that right causes damage to a person, then you must pay that damage?

As to your comments about a mosque. The location shows a real lack of sensibility on the part of the proponents of the building, but it's not likely to incite violence. It should be allowed. That said, I'm not at all sure how construction of a building is exercise of the right to freedom of speech.
 
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

Is a possible answer that which applies here in defamation cases - there is freedom of speech (subject to the incitement to violence to which I referred) but if the exercise of that right causes damage to a person, then you must pay that damage?

As to your comments about a mosque. The location shows a real lack of sensibility on the part of the proponents of the building, but it's not likely to incite violence. It should be allowed. That said, I'm not at all sure how construction of a building is exercise of the right to freedom of speech.

I'm not Tortuf, but I hope you don't mind my inserting my understanding. Defamation wouldn't apply here as the protesters weren't saying the marine whose funeral was being held was gay and thus responsible for the supposed judgment of God on the nation or that he was in any way responsible for the deaths of other military. Rather, the supposed defamation was against our government and the nation as a whole, which is allowed under Free Speech.

As to the NY Mosque, the 1st Amendment also prohibits the government from restricting freedom of religion, including building of a Mosque, simply because it offends the sensibilities of some. There has been no civil code or legal violation that would prohibit the building of the Mosque and they've met all but financial requirements thus far.

I think the more pertinent issue in this case is how far private establishments be it churches or cemeteries can go in limiting areas of protest. Thus far, most rulings on anything of this nature (abortion protests come to mind) have basically been that once on public property (sidewalk, street, etc) there is the right of peaceful protest.

ETA: Protesters cannot, however, block the entrance to said private business or entity.

[ 07. October 2010, 09:13: Message edited by: Niteowl2 ]
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Niteowl, can I suggest that you read the series of posts. I am well aware that the cause of action here is intentional infliction of nervous shock, not defamation. I was using defamation as an analogy to try to tease out an answer to some of the serious questions Tortuf raised. Similar commetns about the proposed mosque.
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
Well, I only play Tortuf on TV, but Niteowl2 is essentially correct.

The Phelps pestilence is depending on several parts of the First Amendment, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly.

I do not know where the line should be drawn here. Wherever it is, I think they have crossed it. Perhaps it can be placed in the context of the target of the protest. If the protest can reasonably be seen as a protest against government, ideas, political figures, and the like, it is protected. If the action is directed at one person, with the knowledge that a reasonable person would find that it was bound to create emotional distress, it is not protected.

This is actually kind of close to the Phelps' argument. Except they say that Snyder became a public figure because of talking to the press.
 
Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
I am not a lawyer, and my heart bleeds for Mr Snyder and anyone else subjected to the assholes at WBC, but...

if the Supreme Court of the USA decides against that WBC's First Amendment rights (especially after that idiotic "corporations are persons" decision) I'm gonna be in a real bad place when it comes to my opinion of my own country.

Dwight Eisenhower was a true prophet, way back in the '50s, perhaps more than he knew. Except that he didn't foresee how the benign '50s Christianity would morph to join the military-industrial complex.

[ 07. October 2010, 10:18: Message edited by: jlg ]
 
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 
My apologies if I answered out of turn and didn't give an answer you were wanting. Didn't mean to usurp Tortuf's place, but thought I could add my own 2 pennies to the conversation before he returned with his own answer. I'll know better next time if you're looking only for a specific person to speak. The law here is pretty much cut and dried as it's been ruled on before with respect to other times and issues. Not too much room to move once you use the parameters you tried to put up. My last statement was my opinion on the true issue before the court - how much latitude does a private place of business have in limiting protesters?

I'll add another opinion, if you don't mind. It's a slippery slope once you have a go at trying to limit free speech due to offensiveness. One never knows where the lines will be re-drawn in the future. Better to have the peaceful counter measures put in place by civilians to block the offending Phelps clan from the view of the mourners than and to find another way to work out the Mosque issue than trying to find a legal means of blocking either. You never know when you'll be on the receiving end of the legal maneuvers next time.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
When Fred Phelps dies, I wonder what will be on the placards at his funeral?

Maybe God will arrange a few of his own at the pearly gates?
 
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
When Fred Phelps dies, I wonder what will be on the placards at his funeral?

Maybe God will arrange a few of his own at the pearly gates?

Should there even be anyone at old Freddie's funeral? The family wouldn't be offended, they'd be overjoyed at any protests. I read today one of his grandkid's making the statement that when their family is gone the U.S. will be too. That kind of arrogance would thrive on the attention. A better response would be for everyone to simply ignore the occasion as he doesn't deserve any attention.
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
You are doing fine, Niteowl2. You cannot usurp anyone's place here, as there are no places here. Except for hosts and admins, of course.

In a small effort to attribute some humanity to these - whatever they are - the Phelps brief did have an interesting insight into the origins of their calamitous crusade. Their anti homosexual protests started when they began protesting at a local park that (they claim) was notorious for homosexual liaisons in the bushes.

Whatever the Court says about their rights, they still ought to be ashamed of themselves.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Don't hold your breath for that one.

But...wouldn't it be cool if one of the clan finally "came out" and started an anti-Westboro society? Ah! To dream! [Snigger]
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Niteowl, Tortuf and I were not having a private conversation; it was and is open to everyone to comment as they consider proper. All I was suggesting is that you read the relevant posts before bursting into print.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
As to your comments about a mosque. The location shows a real lack of sensibility on the part of the proponents of the building, but it's not likely to incite violence.

Tortuf didn't refer to the non-ground-zero non-mosque in New York City. He referred to the mosque in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. Whose location is not an insensitive decision, unless you think building a mosque anywhere in an American city is insensitive. The anti-mosque forces have so completely and successfully sold the "sensitivity" issue that it has started to rub off on every proposed mosque construction project in the USA. We are all losers if we buy into that rhetoric.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Mousethief , as you say,we are certainly all losers if we adopt thatline.

Tortuf's post referred to the NY mosque. I did not realise that to be really a reference to one in Tennessee.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
On the other hand, if they can be restrained, how might that argument be used by the nutters opposing the mosque here in Murfreesboro to help stop the construction of a mosque? Clearly, the proposed mosque is hurting several peoples' finer sensibilities. (OK, it is really pissing off the antediluvian redneck paranoid set.) Shouldn't that be enough to stop the mosque?

Unless they've moved Murfreesboro....

[ 09. October 2010, 01:59: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
What are Big Girl Panties? And, where can I get a pair?
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Don't hold your breath for that one.

But...wouldn't it be cool if one of the clan finally "came out" and started an anti-Westboro society? Ah! To dream! [Snigger]

Well, his son Nate is not 'out' as gay, but he does do his best to talk about the family's sickness
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
What are Big Girl Panties? And, where can I get a pair?

What they are

Where to purchase
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Are the Big Girl Panties of the same material as the Supreme Bourt briefs?

My apologies Mousthief; I read Niteowl's rerefence to the NY mosque and Tortuf's reply, then conflated them. Back to work now.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
No harm.
 
Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Are the Big Girl Panties of the same material as the Supreme Bourt briefs?

I suspect the Supreme Court briefs have a much higher lawyer-per-square-inch count.
 
Posted by Rossweisse. (# 2349) on :
 
I greatly value the First Amendment; I disagree vehemently with Cass Sunstein and others of his ilk who would chip away at it by selectively banning certain kinds of commercial speech. (And I'll bet he's Obama's next nominee for the Supreme Court.) But...

But surely there is no right to harass private individuals on this scale. And just because the target of that hideous harassment speaks to the press about said harassment, he is hardly a "public figure" - or nobody will have any privacy protections left at all.
 
Posted by Imaginary Friend (# 186) on :
 
Please forgive me if this post is too purgatorial, but I have been thinking about the issues of freedom of speech a bit lately and I was wondering something.

It seems to me that most Americans understand the First Amendment to protect the freedom to say what you like, where you like, whenever you like. This seems (to me, at least) to lead directly to issues like the Phelps gang 'picketing' funerals whilst believing that the Constitution protects their right to do so. But how about an alternative interpretation. Say instead that the First Amendment enables the freedom to say what you like somewhere and at some time, but not necessarily everywhere and at all times. To put it another way, everyone must have a forum to put their views forward, but it is acknowledged that some places and times are not appropriate for some kinds of discourse.

If this interpretation was used, then Phelps would be free to arrange as many rallies as he likes and use whatever horrible words he wants, but not (for example) when it impacts the grieving of the family of a serviceman. Actually, this interpretation goes further: It says that an appropriate forum must be given to Phelps although it acknowledges that some circumstances will be off limits.

Of course, the obvious criticism of this interpretation is that it is going to be very difficult to come up with a consistent way of drawing the line between appropriate times and places and inappropriate ones. But that's what the US has the Supreme Court for, right?

So what do you think? Could this interpretation provide any clarity in this kind of situation?
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
IF, that would be true... except there's already some limits. The most famous of which is the Fire Test, which says if saying something could cause injury, such as shouting FIRE in a crowded theater, then it is restricted speech. Another example of restricted speech is threats of violence with intent to carry them out, which is why if you ever threaten the President of the United States, you will shortly be visited by Secret Service agents who will ask you very pointed questions.

(Man, there are some days I wish I'd stuck with law school and become a Constitutional lawyer like I planned)
 
Posted by Imaginary Friend (# 186) on :
 
I knew about the example of shouting fire in a crowded theater, but didn't realize it was specifically to do with the possibility of causing injury. Which leads to the obvious question: how widely is 'injury' defined; and specifically: does the anguish of the family and friends of the dead soldiers count?
 
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
You know, if they made a church project out of tenderly providing Jesus-infused Hospice care for indigent dying AIDS patients, maybe-just-maybe people would give them a hearing if they wanted to calmly and reasonably hold forth on why they understand God to deliver time-framed punishment based on U.S. indulgence in and of homosexuality.

Maybe they're living out a twisted watchman-on-the-wall mentality. You know, if you warn people about the danger out there, and they ignore you, well then, you've done your bit, their blood isn't on your hands. That passage is supposed to impress on the "watchman" that he has a responsibility to God and to his people, not supply the "watchman" with an excuse to abusively shout out his own emphasis on a part of God's message then walk away, righteously relieved of his responsibility toward both God and man.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
You know, if they made a church project out of tenderly providing Jesus-infused Hospice care for indigent dying AIDS patients, maybe-just-maybe people would give them a hearing if they wanted to calmly and reasonably hold forth on why they understand God to deliver time-framed punishment based on U.S. indulgence in and of homosexuality.

As far as I know providing care would be based on the Gospel while the second, linking war dead to government policy, just isn't.

The problem is that plenty of churches provide hospice care and do good in other ways, but they don't make the news. Other bodies have even campaigned against legalisation of homosexuality without being as unpleasant as the Phreddies. That doesn't make the news either.
 
Posted by Lou Poulain (# 1587) on :
 
It's not the "watchman on the wall" attitude. It's rather the attitude of being spectators with a vested interest in seeing AND TAKING PLEASURE OR SATISFACTION in the opponents not just losing, but suffering utter destruction. There is an astonishingly constant meanness that I find incomprehensible.

[ 29. October 2010, 22:37: Message edited by: Lou Poulain ]
 
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :
 
They show Christian Compassion. And that lies at thr root of the faith. Their sopeech SHOULD NOT be protected it is hateful a long the lines of some of the rascist statements of the KKK and their speech too should not be protected.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
It's not the "watchman on the wall" attitude. It's rather the attitude of being spectators with a vested interest in seeing AND TAKING PLEASURE OR SATISFACTION in the opponents not just losing, but suffering utter destruction. There is an astonishingly constant meanness that I find incomprehensible.

I think it's pretty pointless to discuss Fred Phelps' relation to Christian culture and philosophy, even the conservative kind he claims to represent.

Here's what I think happened with his group...

He probably started out genuinely opposing the gay-rights movement. Somewhere along the way, however, he got the isolated idea to picket a funeral. This garnered a lot of virulent media attention, which quickly went to Fred's head. It also had a rallying effect on his church, since he could then say "Look, the whole world hates us! Just like the Bible says they would!" So, from then on, picketting funerals became his preferred means of public demonstration.

If you look at the funerals he pickets(military, the murdered Amish kids etc), it's pretty clear that he chooses his targets not according to how pro-gay they are, but according to how much outrage the picketting will provoke among the general public.

If someone were to do an in-depth, behind-the-scenes analysis of the Phelps sect, I suspect they'd find it has little focus on any traditional Christian concerns(less than even most such groups), and has bascially degenerated into a personality-cult focussed on Fred himself, with a manichean Us Vs. Every Other Single Person On The Planet mentality.
 
Posted by basso (# 4228) on :
 
You may remember the big gas pipeline explosion in San Bruno, California a few weeks ago. Well, like moths to a flame(!) the Westboro loonies came to town the other day to tell us that it happened because of, yes, our tolerance of you-know-what.
quote:

Millbrae, Calif., police say some 70 people turned out for a counterdemonstration against three members of a Topeka, Kan., church, who claimed a recent fatal gas pipeline blast in nearby San Bruno was God's way of taking vengeance on a corrupt city and its wicked people.

Shirley Phelps-Roper of Westboro Baptist Church protested Monday along with her husband and their 8-year-old son. Police Cmdr. Mark Raffaelli says the counter-rally occurred across the street.

Phelps-Roper says the Sept. 9 explosion that killed eight and destroyed dozens of homes was a curse that God placed on the corrupt. She also criticized a nearby high school for accepting gays.

[From here.]
Interesting that they seem to be down to Shirley and her immediate family.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
If they lived in the UK, I reckon the child Protection people would have taken away the 8yo son a long time ago - parents insane.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
You know...I'd love to see them find some reason to go to Sacramento, CA to protest...perhaps our ongoing tug of war about same-sex marriage?

I'd love to see Jerry Brown, our once and next governor, tear into them verbally. Or even Arnold S., our current governor.
[Snigger]
 
Posted by Rossweisse. (# 2349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
... Or even Arnold S., our current governor.

...as the Terminator.
 
Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :
 
I would pay money (serious money, too) to see Arnold get after the Phelps Pholk.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Let's sic Doc Martin from the TV series on them, too!

(Am watching the one that's sort of a take-off on "Whatever Happened To Baby Jane". [Eek!] )

Oh, and Gordon Ramsay, in full US "Hell's Kitchen" mode.

Hmmmm, who else? Should we put together a "Magnificent Seven"?

Comedienne and talk show host Ellen deGeneres has to be in the group.
[Smile]

Other possibilities: Whoopi Goldberg, Judge Judy, the ghost of Molly Ivins. Heck, Matthew Shephard's ghost.
[Votive]
 
Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
Since Molly Ivins and Ann Richards are no longer with us, I suggest Jim Hightower. Texas, despite producing too many idiot conservatives, sure can dish up great populists.
 
Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
ROTFALMAO!!!!!!

After tires slashed Oklahoma town refuses to help Gods Hates Fags protesters

quote:
Following the protest, the group returned to their minivan to find that the front and rear tires on the passenger side of the vehicle had been slashed.

"To make matters worse, as their minivan slowly hobbled away on two flat tires, with a McAlester police car following behind, the protesters were unable to find anyone in town who would repair their vehicle, according to police," Tulsa World reported.

This after they'd been met by a counter-protest of about a thousand.
 
Posted by Shadowhund (# 9175) on :
 
Well that's stupid....they should have fixed their tires so they could get out of town as quickly as possible...before sundown preferrably.
 
Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
. . . But how about an alternative interpretation. Say instead that the First Amendment enables the freedom to say what you like somewhere and at some time, but not necessarily everywhere and at all times. To put it another way, everyone must have a forum to put their views forward, but it is acknowledged that some places and times are not appropriate for some kinds of discourse.


The Phelpses already have a perfectly appropriate forum: they have their own church. From their perspective, I imagine, their church is inadequate to their "forum" needs, because (AIUI) nobody except their own family attends.

One would think that a bit of reflection on this fact -- that nobody wants or listens to their message -- might result in reconsideration of the message content.

But then, we sometimes observe similar phenomena on board the Ship.
 
Posted by Rossweisse. (# 2349) on :
 
Here's a heart-warming story of small-town solidarity in the face of Phelpses: Harrisonville, Missouri Gathers To Keep Phelps Protesters From Soldier's Funeral

I would definitely released my daughter from school to take part in that peaceful, life-affirming protest. (And I like the fact that the reporter didn't bother interviewing any of the Westboro loons: this story's not about you nutcases.)
 
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :
 
I am begiging to that Phelps & co are like North Korea make a bit of noise and get some attention.Spoiled children in other words, with aplogies to all us spoiled children who donm'r rant off. I still wonder where the virtue of charity (love) lays with these folks. [Smile] [Angel]
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
They aren't in any way like North Korea - Kim Jong would be way funnier on youtube videos.
 
Posted by tracyk859 (# 16048) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:

Anyway, here's a great video of a faux-news reporter hitting on Fred Phelps Jr. It's definitely worth a view.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KZPsTM-4qgg

[Killing me] [Killing me] [Killing me]
Such a very amazing link!
Thanks for the post.


__________________
watch movies online free
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by basso:
You may remember the big gas pipeline explosion in San Bruno, California a few weeks ago. Well, like moths to a flame(!) the Westboro loonies came to town the other day to tell us that it happened because of, yes, our tolerance of you-know-what.
quote:

Millbrae, Calif., police say some 70 people turned out for a counterdemonstration against three members of a Topeka, Kan., church, who claimed a recent fatal gas pipeline blast in nearby San Bruno was God's way of taking vengeance on a corrupt city and its wicked people.

Shirley Phelps-Roper of Westboro Baptist Church protested Monday along with her husband and their 8-year-old son. Police Cmdr. Mark Raffaelli says the counter-rally occurred across the street.

Phelps-Roper says the Sept. 9 explosion that killed eight and destroyed dozens of homes was a curse that God placed on the corrupt. She also criticized a nearby high school for accepting gays.

[From here.]
Interesting that they seem to be down to Shirley and her immediate family.

One of these days, some accident is going to befall a member of the Phelps clan. And at that point in time, I will pity them as they try to come up with an explanation as to why it happened.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
One of these days, some accident is going to befall a member of the Phelps clan. And at that point in time, I will pity them as they try to come up with an explanation as to why it happened.

You are a much better Christian than I am.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You are a much better Christian than I am.

I'm not thinking of pity as terribly warm emotion on this occasion. It will be like watching a dumb animal suffer.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You are a much better Christian than I am.

I'm not thinking of pity as terribly warm emotion on this occasion. It will be like watching a dumb animal suffer.
Well okay, I've never enjoyed watching animals suffer. Although I've despatched any number of fish with a truncheon.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
One of these days, some accident is going to befall a member of the Phelps clan. And at that point in time, I will pity them as they try to come up with an explanation as to why it happened.

Personally, I'm imagining the size of the protest at old Phred's funeral when he finally packs it in. Give 'em the old "see how you like it" treatment...
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
One of these days, some accident is going to befall a member of the Phelps clan. And at that point in time, I will pity them as they try to come up with an explanation as to why it happened.

I reckon they will live until the Last Judgement, so they can get their reward, in person, from Jesus, in front of everyone else. After all, neither God nor Satan wants to let any of them in sooner than is absolutely necessary.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
One of these days, some accident is going to befall a member of the Phelps clan. And at that point in time, I will pity them as they try to come up with an explanation as to why it happened.

Personally, I'm imagining the size of the protest at old Phred's funeral when he finally packs it in. Give 'em the old "see how you like it" treatment...
I think we should charter an aeroplane so that we could all go.
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
Certainly an interesting service to MW!
 
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :
 
I pray that Phred will live long enough to repent.

I fear that will be a very long time....
 
Posted by marmot (# 479) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
One of these days, some accident is going to befall a member of the Phelps clan. And at that point in time, I will pity them as they try to come up with an explanation as to why it happened.

Personally, I'm imagining the size of the protest at old Phred's funeral when he finally packs it in. Give 'em the old "see how you like it" treatment...
I think we should charter an aeroplane so that we could all go.
Sounds like a job for the Legion of Bad Monkeys.
 
Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
Seems they are hitting the Boston area.

A suburban high school performance of The Laramie Project has sold out all 1400 tickets in advance (a first for the school's drama club). Brandeis University (a predominately Jewish institution), Harvard, and the Islamic Center of Boston are also on the agenda.

Brandeis has organized activities for the day and have already raised $3000 via phelps-a-thon. Harvard and the Islamic Center seem to have opted for simply ignoring the Phelps (aside from perhaps cooperating with local law enforcement).
 
Posted by teddybear (# 7842) on :
 
They almost got to meet their maker:
Disabled vet stalks Phelps clan.

quote:
Prosecutors today charged a decorated, double-amputee veteran with stalking and three counts of criminal use of a firearm in an incident involving members of a controversial Topeka church. Ryan J. Newell, 26, an Army veteran living in Marion, made his first appearance in Sedgwick County District Court through a video connection with the Sedgwick County Jail. He also was charged with false impersonation. His bond remains at $500,000.

A defense fund has been set up for the man.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Sure, charter the plane--but turn up at the WRONG funeral. And then get all apologetic on TV about not being able to give him the attention he so clearly, um, deserved.

For a ton of people to just MISS his funeral (aw shucky darn) might be perfect justice.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
But but but... LC! It would be the best Shipmeet EVER!
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
The more reason to find a good bar!
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Alternately, we could all turn up at Phred's funeral and give long soulful speeches about our dear brother Richard... or was it Bill... I know I USED to remember his name correctly... John? and his lovely long-term campaign on spaying and neutering, was it?, so inspiring to us all.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
And his poor partner George...
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
ROTFL!! [Smile]

Or...use the day to do pro-LGBT charitable projects, in his memory. [Smile]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Or mimic his web page of 'Matthew Sheppard burning in Hell' - but in a positive way - Fred Phelps being hugged and kissed by thousands of LGBT Christians in heaven.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Fred Phelps being hugged and kissed by thousands of LGBT Christians in heaven.

Sigh. Assuming he turns up there, I know I have to, but... do I have to?
 
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
They aren't in any way like North Korea - Kim Jong would be way funnier on youtube videos.

Fletcher you are quite right Kim would be much funnier tha Phelphs &U co any day of the week. And he would have better backdrops. [Angel] [Smile]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
I confess I sometimes hope he'll be greeted by God in the guise of a beautiful drag queen--just long enough to make a point.

Then I start worrying about how God might greet *me*.
[Paranoid]
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Fred Phelps being hugged and kissed by thousands of LGBT Christians in heaven.

Sigh. Assuming he turns up there, I know I have to, but... do I have to?
think of it as taking one for the team? I'm sure Saint Peter would mark it in your favor. Last minute points can only help!
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
If he does show up in heaven it'll be because he's repented, and God's an annoyingly let-bygones-be-bygones kinda gal. Ask Jonah. Pissed him off no end.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Fred Phelps being hugged and kissed by thousands of LGBT Christians in heaven.

Sigh. Assuming he turns up there, I know I have to, but... do I have to?
think of it as taking one for the team? I'm sure Saint Peter would mark it in your favor. Last minute points can only help!
Points? [Paranoid]

I'm not sure I like the theology there. And if points ARE relevant, then I'd argue that Phelpsy might be in trouble anyway. It's only because I don't believe God keeps that kind of scorecard that I can actually stomach the idea that Phelpsy will be turning up!
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
I dont believe it either. But then, I dont believe in heaven. I never meant to wax all theological, chill out.
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
And with that last comment could we chill the partying and let this thread get back to its stated function of registering the latest outrages of the Phelpses?


I thank my dear little Hellions for their contributions to funerary fantasies. But all good things come to an end, geddit?

PeteC
The nice Hellhost

 
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :
 
How much of the Phelps church's budget goes to travel expenses?
 
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :
 
NEWS FLASH according to CNN Westboro Baptist Church is going to stage a protest at the funeral of Mrs Elizabeth Edwards when that happens . For UK readers she was the wife of
Senator John Edwards and she passed away this week from cancer. [Angel] [Frown]
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
NEWS FLASH according to CNN Westboro Baptist Church is going to stage a protest at the funeral of Mrs Elizabeth Edwards when that happens . For UK readers she was the wife of
Senator John Edwards and she passed away this week from cancer. [Angel] [Frown]

I can see demonstrating against her creep of an estranged husband, but what did Elizabeth do that they didn't like?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
I can see demonstrating against her creep of an estranged husband, but what did Elizabeth do that they didn't like?

Since when do they only protest at the funerals of people who do something they don't like?
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
I can see demonstrating against her creep of an estranged husband, but what did Elizabeth do that they didn't like?

Since when do they only protest at the funerals of people who do something they don't like?
Because there's just SO MUCH they don't like.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Since when do they only protest at the funerals of people who do something they don't like?

Because there's just SO MUCH they don't like.
They don't like anyone or anything that's not them.
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
Just found this in my local paper:
quote:
Westboro's announcement of the picket also claims that God hates Edwards and that she is dead because she thought she could control God.

[Confused]
Because of her fertility treatments? Her cancer treatments? Or just because the Phelps clan are insane?
 
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Just found this in my local paper:
quote:
Westboro's announcement of the picket also claims that God hates Edwards and that she is dead because she thought she could control God.

[Confused]
Because of her fertility treatments? Her cancer treatments? Or just because the Phelps clan are insane?

All of the above along with a desperate need for attention.

And to answer the earlier question of how much of the budget goes towards travel expenses, the answer is too much.
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
The most annoying thing about the latest press release is that it's getting a lot of attention from people who have never heard of him. I'm having to explain that a) He's not representative of, well, ANY Christians, most especially not me and my parish and b) the likelyhood of his crew actually showing up is very low.
 
Posted by Pearl B4 Swine (# 11451) on :
 
This news report contains The flyer text from Westboro "Church". (Not worksafe, T)

Make sure you have a throw-up container handy when you read it. And tissues to mop up your tears.

[ETA link warning.]

[ 09. December 2010, 23:50: Message edited by: Think² ]
 
Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
Hey, these are the people who threatened to picket the funeral of Mr Rogers. Once you've sunk _that_ low, is _anything_ else you do surprising? [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
If John wants to make up for some of what he did to Elizabeth, perhaps he could tell Fred & Co. off? And possibly deck Fred?

The latter wouldn't be good, for several reasons. But...
 
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
If John wants to make up for some of what he did to Elizabeth, perhaps he could tell Fred & Co. off? And possibly deck Fred?

The latter wouldn't be good, for several reasons. But...

As lacking as John has been, in several ways, i don't think he sinks anywhere as low as Fred's crew.
 
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :
 
Phelps & Co are beyond sick I would say they are insane . No one chooses the feath of a loved one or cancer . These people disgrace the name of Christian IMHO . [Mad] [Mad] [Angel] [Smile]
 
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 
What really bothers me is news organizations that are publishing stories about the funeral are devoting a good share of the space to Phelps planned protest. Please, the focus should be on Elizabeth Edwards and the family and friends. Phelps doesn't deserve a single word of publicity. [Mad]
 
Posted by Rossweisse. (# 2349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by marmot:
Sounds like a job for the Legion of Bad Monkeys.

Indeed. You up for it, Marmot?
 
Posted by Rossweisse. (# 2349) on :
 
Some friends and former colleagues of mine have started a new group to sing at military and other targeted funerals, and drown out the haters: Opera Singers Against Hate.

(We don't need no stinkin' amplifiers.)
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Oooh! Ooooh! And WHAT precisely would you choose to sing?
 
Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
A good rousing dies irae (preferably the Verdi) of course!
 
Posted by Rossweisse. (# 2349) on :
 
Dies irae would be the perfect thing, jlg.

I think the big Easter chorus from Cavalleria rusticana would be good, in the other direction, as would the final scene from Gounod's Faust.

On the other hand, hymns and spiritual songs could be sung a cappella, with big voices to lead the way. The Taizé song "God is love" is a natural.
 
Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
The Verdi really does need the orchestra.

I broke down and joined Facebook for this group. I see they are planning on traditional hymns and songs that will be likely to seem supportive to the mourners and I have to agree with them.

I hadn't thought of Taize. a capella, easy for bystanders to pick up the underlying monotonous 'chant' part and join in, harmony parts for any sight-singers (if some printed music is provided), and the lovely solos (for those who volunteered ahead of time) drifting in and out over it all in various languages. Why do I suspect the Phelps family wouldn't like it?
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jlg:
Why do I suspect the Phelps family wouldn't like it?

Too reminiscent of the Kingdom of God?
 
Posted by Rossweisse. (# 2349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jlg:
...Why do I suspect the Phelps family wouldn't like it?

It's comforting to people? It uses Bible verses they don't endorse?
 
Posted by basso (# 4228) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jlg:
Why do I suspect the Phelps family wouldn't like it?

It uses Latin? [Eek!]

Ross, I thought of the Gounod too.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Because Taize' music is at least quasi Catholic?
 
Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on :
 
The all male chorus of "Go West" would sound good being belted out by an operatic group. In fact, the whole song would work on so many levels.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0