# Westboro Church Protest Mega-thread



## 48Highlander (20 Jan 2006)

Here's an interesting article about a new law about to be voted on in Indiana:



			
				http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060120/NEWS02/601200535 said:
			
		

> Protests at all funerals targeted
> Bill to shield mourners passes state Senate 47-1
> 
> By Mary Beth Schneider
> ...



Any thoughts?  As much as I detest the actions of these religious groups, does it justify placing restrictions on our freedom of speech?


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Jan 2006)

I think it's a beautiful idea.

I think there is freedom of speach and there is yelling FIRE in a crowded building.  Not exactly the same scenario I know but still.

I would argue that these protesters showing up at funerals for soldiers are (or should be) breaking some type of harassment law.  A family dealing with the suffering and greif of lost loved ones don't need to deal with this bullshit.  Protesters are crossing the line from freedom of speach to, in my opinion, causing these family members undue pain and suffering.  I'd even consider it a hate crime.  These protesters are not just excersising their right to free speach they are going out of their way to HURT these family members.  



> The bill makes it a Class D felony, punishable by up to three years in prison and a $10,000 fine, for anyone engaged in disorderly conduct within 500 feet of a grave site, funeral home or funeral procession.



Awesome.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (20 Jan 2006)

Works for me.....untill some Hells Angels use it so Police can't keep watch on who's who.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Jan 2006)

Thats different though.  Police are law enforcement AND their not burning flags and giving god hates faggets signs to kids.  Law enforcement agencies shouldn't even be associated with this restriction, no?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Jan 2006)

If I was at that funeral I'd be playing some serious smash mouth with those clowns.  Anybody disrespects one of my friends that God forbid doesn't come home unscathed will wish they never woke up that morning.


----------



## MikeM (20 Jan 2006)

Amen CFL, Amen.


----------



## muffin (20 Jan 2006)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Here's an interesting article about a new law about to be voted on in Indiana:
> 
> Any thoughts?  As much as I detest the actions of these religious groups, does it justify placing restrictions on our freedom of speech?



I am doing a paper on censorship in times of crisis, civil liberty, freedom of speech and the patriot act right now - this will make an interesting point - thanks for posting. I was having a hard time finding anything "pro-censor" -

It definatly sheds a different light on things. 

Maggie


----------



## dutchie (20 Jan 2006)

I can live with that law. Too bad those troops' section mates (squad mates?) weren't there to enlighten the protestors. To exploit a soldier's death (or anyone's for that matter) for political gain or to spread hate is exceptionally offensive to me. Those ungrateful scumbags should be sentenced to cleaning out the body bags and spend their lunch breaks reading letters to and from the deceased loved ones.


----------



## S McKee (20 Jan 2006)

Westbro Baptist Church is a group of religious nuts (all one family..you can hear the banjos in the background) who believe in an international "gay conspiracy" and America is "being punished" by God because the government isn't stringing up every homosexual in the US. They're much like Pat Robertson who recently stated that God struck down Areil Sharon because of the Middle-East peace process. The mental agony that they inflict on the families of soldiers by showing up at their funerals and actually rejoicing that these men and women were killed by God, as some sort of divine retribution is truly disgusting. I'm sure there is special place in hell for these inbreds who should be shot on sight.


----------



## 3rd Herd (20 Jan 2006)

Several points
1) in both the US constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights, FREE SPEACH is not for those of you hard of hearing CARTE BLANCH TO ESPOUSE ANYTHING YOU WISH. IF you choose to do so you are violating my rights and freedoms. To deal with this area there a several provincial and federal statues. Conjunctively there are several recent supreme court rulings affirming this. Ersent Zundal comes to mind.

2) Check out conduct guidelines for students in any university calender. Most guidelines are structured to promote free speech and the exchange of ideas.

3)CFL your wrong but in several cases I know about/involved with judges/crown counsel have used their powers of discretion and punishment has fitted the crime (pre emptive justice). I believe the term used was "mitigating circumstances". I know your to you to remember this, but in the United States a popular sport developed in throwing blood on returning soldiers from Viet Nam in Oakland and Seattle airports. It was interesting here the opinion of those professionals.

4) Muffin if your are looking for some more cases at a provincial level- Surrey School Board(I forget the district #) and school library content, again in BC Supreme court, restriction of speech, action and demonstration in the proximity to abortion clinics. 

5) Bruce, the Angels already tried this and they lost. Just as an aside have you seen the dial 1-800-***-**** report biker gang activity posters springing up.

6) To me all it seems the the State of Indiana is doing is reaffirming the right o peaceful assembly ( the military funerals) and recognizing there is a problem and therefore enacting legislation as their citizen's desire.

7) Grade 11 Canadian Law to start in 1 hour room 109.

my two cents


----------



## Sig_Des (20 Jan 2006)

I'll agree completely with Jumper's last.

To subject these soldier's families to the stress and pile on to their grief is unjustifiable in all senses. There is NO excuse.

The exploitation of a funeral, no matter what kind or whose it is, for any sort of political or personal gain, is just plain bloody disgusting.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Jan 2006)

3rd not sure what I'm wrong about.  My actions.  Well maybe but if it were to happen I'll be on the news right or wrong.


----------



## Douke (20 Jan 2006)

Every right that is given to you by the American or Canadian constitutions are conditional to the fact that the exercise of your right is not preventing anyone else from exercising his. In this case, these fanatic religious nuts are without a single doubt preventing KIA military families from exercising their right to respect and peaceful gathering. It hence become civil disorder and should be treated as is.

Douke


----------



## muffin (20 Jan 2006)

3rd Herd said:
			
		

> 4) Muffin if your are looking for some more cases at a provincial level- Surrey School Board(I forget the district #) and school library content, again in BC Supreme court, restriction of speech, action and demonstration in the proximity to abortion clinics.



Thank you Herd -
I am trying to keep the focus on restrictions of artistic freedom and civil liberties during times of crisis as I have to keep it to 4 pages and therefor had to refine the scope a little. 

I am heading more in the "Banning the Dixie Chicks and John Lennon music" direction - though one was government ordered and the other public demanded... 

There was a Doonesbury cartoon banned just after 9/11 because it was a bush satire, and there was that Arnold Swartzennager movie (the name escapes me) that was delayed because it showed an attack on the trade towers. 

But... now that I have managed to take this thread right off topic ... I digress  lol


----------



## 48Highlander (20 Jan 2006)

3rd Herd said:
			
		

> Several points
> 1) in both the US constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights, FREE SPEACH is not for those of you hard of hearing CARTE BLANCH TO ESPOUSE ANYTHING YOU WISH. IF you choose to do so you are violating my rights and freedoms. To deal with this area there a several provincial and federal statues. Conjunctively there are several recent supreme court rulings affirming this. Ersent Zundal comes to mind.
> 
> 6) To me all it seems the the State of Indiana is doing is reaffirming the right o peaceful assembly ( the military funerals) and recognizing there is a problem and therefore enacting legislation as their citizen's desire.



Sorry, but you're wrong.  Someone protesting a funeral does not violate the right of those attending the funeral to "peaceful assembly".  Whereas making it illegal for them to protest at the funerals DOES remove their right to peaceful assembly.

You're right in that the right to free speech does not give you carte blanche to say anything you wish, however, up untill this point the only limitations that the US has placed on it is in cases such as making death threats, inciting riots, or creating panic.  Those are all quite different from voicing your political beleifs at a funeral.

Moreover, this ruling doesn't really limit freedom of speech so much as the right to peacably assemble.  I suppose I phrased my original question badly.  These people are still free to voice their vile beleifs, but they're not allowed to do so while at a funeral.

Keep in mind I'm not AGAINST this law....I'm just a little iffy about it.



			
				Douke said:
			
		

> Every right that is given to you by the American or Canadian constitutions are conditional to the fact that the exercise of your right is not preventing anyone else from exercising his.



Right, but protesting has never been considered to be preventing others from exercising their rights.  If you say that this is somehow infringing on the rights of the mourners at the funeral, then by the same logic you could stifle ANY speech you don't like.  You could make it illegal for people to speak out against the war on Iraq based on the idea that it's hurtful to the families of the soldiers.  Or you could make it illegal for people to speak out FOR the war on Iraq, based on the idea that they're promoting the killing of innocent Iraqis.  Once you start regulating where and how people can assemble, and what they can say there....you're starting down a slippery slope.


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Jan 2006)

It would be very difficult to demonstrate that an exercise of free speech was a direct assault on one's inherent freedoms.  Ill manners are certainly not an infringement of rights.  The mere existence of freedoms of conscience implies the obligation to be tolerant of beliefs and expression you dislike, since it is impractical to expect to never become aware of any.

An exhortation to someone to undertake to actually infringe a right is not in itself an infringement, since between every exhortation and act stands a rational person of free will capable of making a moral decision.  Accountability for that decision and any resulting act rests with the person making it.

People have difficulty understanding this basic concept, although they learn it as children: "Do you do everything someone tells you?".  It shows, unfortunately, in some of our laws.

In most cases we already have the means to restrain poor manners.  For example, most if not all funerals are conducted in privately-owned buildings on privately-owned lands.  However, nowadays everyone seems to want the quick fix to their offended sensibilities, so censorship is the preferred solution.


----------



## 3rd Herd (20 Jan 2006)

Slope= Injunction a method used to employ lawyers who would otherwise be collecting E.I. and is becoming more and more synonymous to "slap suit".


----------



## S McKee (20 Jan 2006)

IMO the particular case that this forum relates to, that being the loonies of Westbro Baptist Church, is not really about free speech. In Canada their actions at these funerals would be prosecuted under our hate laws. The funeral is an opportunity to spread their hatred against homosexuals, who according to these hillbillies, are the cause of all the evil in world. They could care less about the war. They publically advocate that "God hates Fags" which could be considered as an invitation to incite violence against gays. Check out their website complete with screaming homosexuals roasting in hell. True paragons of Christian love.


----------



## mo-litia (20 Jan 2006)

It seems to me that the most likely result of this law-if passed-will be that the protesters will appeal-successfully   :-\-that THEIR rights are being violated by having their right of protest taken away. 

A compromise will likely occur in the courts, allowing people to protest a certain distance from the funeral, with some restrictions given on the amount of noise they are allowed to generate, etc, so that they can not interfere with the funeral or intrude upon the grief of the mourners.  A caveat that I HOPE would be added to such a compromise law would be a restriction upon any direct contact between media members and the mourners; privacy should be protected at occasions such as a funeral.

I don't agree with inbred, anti-military hillbillies protesting at a soldier's funeral but we have to keep in mind that troops should not be dying for freedom when freedoms are being taken away in their own country.


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (21 Jan 2006)

What bothers me is that they would attend a soldiers funeral to "make their point". Soldiers are fighting for their country, they dont make the political decisions. Sure demonstrate all you want but do it on the lawn of the people pulling the strings.


----------



## 3rd Herd (21 Jan 2006)

More food for thought:

​Google rebuffs U.S. gov't demand for search data
Updated Fri. Jan. 20 2006 11:27 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Google Inc. says it will "vigorously" fight the Bush administration's demand that it turn over information about what searches users have been asking it to perform.

The government wants a list of all requests entered into Google's search engine during an unspecified week. With an average of 70 million searches per day, that could mean tens of millions of search requests.

Full story at :http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060120/google_request_060120/20060120?hub=TopStories


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Jan 2006)

Good on google.


----------



## Gunnar (22 Jan 2006)

> Every right that is given to you by the American or Canadian constitutions are conditional to the fact that the exercise of your right is not preventing anyone else from exercising his. In this case, these fanatic religious nuts are without a single doubt preventing KIA military families from exercising their right to respect and peaceful gathering. It hence become civil disorder and should be treated as is.



I agree.  The charge isn't one for unpopular opinions, or the exercise of freedom of speech...but for being a dink in public.  Much like you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, you can't go into an emotionally charged situation and be deliberately antangonistic...that's called incitement to riot, and it is an offence.

Don't confuse freedom of speech with license to speak.  It isn't the same.


----------



## 48Highlander (23 Jan 2006)

Gunnar said:
			
		

> I agree.  The charge isn't one for unpopular opinions, or the exercise of freedom of speech...but for being a dink in public.



Fortiunately, "bing a dink in public" is not illegal, and is, in fact, one of your constitutional rights.



			
				Gunnar said:
			
		

> Much like you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, you can't go into an emotionally charged situation and be deliberately antangonistic...that's called incitement to riot, and it is an offence.



Also wrong.  It's called sharing your opinion, not incitement to riot.  Just like I can legaly walk up to you and tell you what I think of your mother/sister/S.O./puppy, I can similarily express my opinion at a funeral.  It makes no sense to restrict that right.  Otherwise, what's to say we can't use the same line of thinking against demonstrators elsewhere?  They decide to protest in front of an armorie, the police arrest them for inciting the soldiers to riot.  They protest in front of parliament, get them for inciting the politicians to riot.

"Inciting to riot" refers to encouraging people to riot. Insulting someone, and encouraging them to be violent, are two totaly different things.  Otherwise, if I insulted you and you punched me in the head, I would be the one being arrested because I incited you to assault me.


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Jan 2006)

> Just like I can legally walk up to you and tell you what I think of your mother/sister/S.O./puppy, I can similarly express my opinion at a funeral.



Can you though?  I can be charged with harassment if i tell a female coworker that she looks nice in the red dress she's wearing. (If she doesn't like how I sounded)
If I approach someone and tell them their mother is a whore can't I be dinged for harassment or if I'm saying someone is a cheat and a liar and a child mollester can't I be charged with some kinda defamatory remarks? Or defamation of character?

These protesters aren't protesting outside of army recruitment centers, government buildings or airports. Their going to funerals with the specific desire to emotionally disturb and hurt the funeral goers.


----------



## clasper (23 Jan 2006)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Fortiunately, "bing a dink in public" is not illegal, and is, in fact, one of your constitutional rights.



But being a dink in an anonymous online forum may be illegal in the US...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/13/AR2006011301311.html
Annoying Online Posts Could Be Illegal
Free speech advocates say a new law geared to stop cyberstalking could be cause for concern.


----------



## S McKee (23 Jan 2006)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> "Inciting to riot" refers to encouraging people to riot. Insulting someone, and encouraging them to be violent, are two totaly different things.  Otherwise, if I insulted you and you punched me in the head, I would be the one being arrested because I incited you to assault me.



No one can legally punch you in the noggin because you insulted them. That person would be charged with assault.


----------



## 48Highlander (23 Jan 2006)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> Can you though?  I can be charged with harassment if i tell a female coworker that she looks nice in the red dress she's wearing. (If she doesn't like how I sounded)
> If I approach someone and tell them their mother is a ***** can't I be dinged for harassment or if I'm saying someone is a cheat and a liar and a child mollester can't I be charged with some kinda defamatory remarks? Or defamation of character?
> 
> These protesters aren't protesting outside of army recruitment centers, government buildings or airports. Their going to funerals with the specific desire to emotionally disturb and hurt the funeral goers.



Interesting points.  I never really thought about that as an infringment on freedom of speech before.  It'd really be nice if we could be consitstant in our attitudestowards free speech.  Why is it wrong to tell a co-worker that she has a sweet ass, but it's ok to call a soldier a baby-killer?  Seems like we have a lot of contradictory laws.

On the other hand I suppose technicaly I COULD sue/charge the next college student who insults me while I'm in uniform.  It'd be fun to see what sort of legal precedent that sets.  I'm sure the left-wing would be up in arms about the gestapo persecuting their freedom of speech, but the way they choose to speak IS a form of "harrasement".



			
				Jumper said:
			
		

> No one can legally punch you in the noggin because you insulted them. That person would be charged with assault.



I know, I think maybe you mis-read what I was saying.


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Jan 2006)

> Why is it wrong to tell a co-worker that she has a sweet ass, but it's OK to call a soldier a baby-killer?  Seems like we have a lot of contradictory laws.



So true!
People can get in a soldiers face and call them baby killers and murderers. They can show up at funerals and laugh in the faces of parents who just lost a son or daughter. Tell them their kid died because god hates fags and the US doesn't hang homosexuals from a tree SO god is killing their children who are soldiers.

Yet, tell a co-worker they look hot and your job is on the line.

Ridiculous


----------



## Douke (23 Jan 2006)

I think the point that is the most relevant of classifying this action as legal or illegal hasn't been noticed :



> These protesters aren't protesting outside of army recruitment centers, government buildings or airports. Their going to funerals with the specific desire to emotionally disturb and hurt the funeral goers.


 _-By Ghost778 on Yesterday at 23:48:11_

One of the right guarateed by our constitutions is the right to privacy, wich cannot be dissiated from the freedom of speech in my humble opinion. In this case, since the hillbilly regroupment is aiming specifically at disturbing a private event, in a very morally questionable manner on top of it, it is invading the mourning  assembly's right for privacy. It such a manifestation was held in a public place and not targeting any particular individual (i.e. in front of a recruting center, at the gates of a military base), it would be an opinion and their right to express it, as stupid as it can be.

Douke


----------



## 48Highlander (23 Jan 2006)

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, the only "right to privacy" guaranteed by the charter is protection of that right from the government.  You have no right to privacy as far as other citizens are concerned.


----------



## Douke (24 Jan 2006)

I am pretty sure you are wrong on that point, just like you are legitimate to call the police if neighbours are making too much noise (even though it is theorically their right to do so and that they are on their own land and not yours, it is invading your privacy and in consequence their rights stops where yours start.). But I will not commit to saying I am 100% sure of it, I have never specifically and deeply studied our laws and constitution.

Douke


----------



## 3rd Herd (24 Jan 2006)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, the only "right to privacy" guaranteed by the charter is protection of that right from the government.  You have no right to privacy as far as other citizens are concerned.



48th, it is not spelled out in the charter but if you return to the reasoning of "your freedoms are only yours as long as they do not infringe on my freedoms". Society deems what is acceptable then enacts legislation to punish those who defy what is deemed acceptable. Legislation of this sort can be found at the municipal level ie 'noise bylaws'. Where there is not munnicipal legislation there is provincial legislation, which in Victoria was recently challenged in that police stopped and searched passengers on city buses for alcohol going to a public festival(they lost) as it is deemed a lawful exercise of justice to guarantee the rights of the festival participants. As to privacy from other citizens " No Tresspassing " means just that whetter it be in the initially thought format or in the modern context of information gathering. Look closely at some of the fine print on documents these days. All carry a disclaimer on where and who the collected information is going to be used. Further in this line many public and private organizations have a 'Officer' in charge of freedom of information access. It is he/she who determines wether your request for violating some one else's privacy is justified or not.


----------



## Cloud Cover (21 Feb 2006)

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act for criticism and review.

From cnn.com:

Bikers roll to military funerals to oppose anti-gay protests

FORT CAMPBELL, Kentucky (AP) -- Wearing vests covered in military patches, a band of motorcyclists rolls around the country from one soldier's funeral to another, cheering respectfully to overshadow jeers from church protesters.

They call themselves the Patriot Guard Riders, and they are more than 5,000 strong, forming to counter anti-gay protests held by the Rev. Fred Phelps at military funerals.

Phelps believes American deaths in Iraq are divine punishment for a country that he says harbors homosexuals. His protesters carry signs thanking God for so-called IEDs -- explosives that are a major killer of soldiers in Iraq.

The bikers shield the families of dead soldiers from the protesters, and overshadow the jeers with patriotic chants and a sea of red, white and blue flags.

"The most important thing we can do is let families know that the nation cares," said Don Woodrick, the group's Kentucky captain. "When a total stranger gets on a motorcycle in the middle of winter and drives 300 miles to hold a flag, that makes a powerful statement."

At least 14 states are considering laws aimed at the funeral protesters, who at a recent memorial service at Fort Campbell wrapped themselves in upside-down American flags. They danced and sang impromptu songs peppered with vulgarities that condemned homosexuals and soldiers.

The Patriot Guard was also there, waving up a ruckus of support for the families across the street. Community members came in the freezing rain to chant "U-S-A, U-S-A" alongside them.

"This is just the right thing to do. This is something America didn't do in the '70s," said Kurt Mayer, the group's national spokesman. "Whether we agree with why we're over there, these soldiers are dying to protect our freedoms."

Shirley Phelps-Roper, a daughter of Fred Phelps and an attorney for the Topeka, Kansas-based church, said neither state laws nor the Patriot Guard can silence their message that God killed the soldiers because they fought for a country that embraces homosexuals.

"The scriptures are crystal clear that when God sets out to punish a nation, it is with the sword. An IED is just a broken-up sword," Phelps-Roper said. "Since that is his weapon of choice, our forum of choice has got to be a dead soldier's funeral."

The church, Westboro Baptist Church, is not affiliated with a larger denomination and is made up mostly of Fred Phelps' extended family members.

During the 1990s, church members were known mostly for picketing the funerals of AIDS victims, and they have long been tracked as a hate group by the Montgomery, Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Project.

The project's deputy director, Heidi Beirich, said other groups have tried to counter Phelps' message, but none has been as organized as the Patriot Guard.

"I'm not sure anybody has gone to this length to stand in solidarity," she said. "It's nice that these veterans and their supporters are trying to do something. I can't imagine anything worse, your loved one is killed in Iraq and you've got to deal with Fred Phelps."

Kentucky, home to sprawling Fort Campbell along the Tennessee line, was among the first states to attempt to deal with Phelps legislatively. Its House and Senate have each passed bills that would limit people from protesting within 300 feet of a funeral or memorial service. The Senate version would also keep protesters from being within earshot of grieving friends and family members.

Richard Wilbur, a retired police detective, said his Indiana Patriot Guard group only comes to funerals if invited by family. He said he has no problem with protests against the war but sees no place for objectors at a family's final goodbye to a soldier.

"No one deserves this," he said.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


----------



## DG-41 (21 Feb 2006)

Anybody else get a little _frisson_ when they saw the name of the group's national spokesman?

DG


----------



## Michael Dorosh (21 Feb 2006)

Anybody who still wants to argue the right to absolute freedom of speech after reading that needs their head examined.

We just had a military funeral last week here; quiet and dignified and more than a little sad since he was 19 years old.  Couldn't imagine some clowns making a circus out of something like that.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Feb 2006)

Well Michael, just happen to have a live one on the hook right now.......
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/40068.0.html


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 Feb 2006)

the Reverend and his group should be put on a plane and air dropped into Afghanistan and Iraq.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (21 Feb 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Well Michael, just happen to have a live one on the hook right now.......
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/40068.0.html



Mo-litia is at it again?  I think I better bite my tongue; that's jus tlike beating your head against a wall.  What he thinks is of little consequence, I think.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Feb 2006)

As much I despise these "protesters", the right to free speech is so powerful that attempts to constrain it for ANY reason are wrong.

The cartoon issue in Denmark (and now here, with the Blogosphere and Western Standard [among others] publishing the cartoons in Canada) shows just how far it can go, the Islamofascists are threatening publishers with death, and the more *ahem* culturally sensitive MSM are refusing to publish the cartoons for the simple reason that while Christians, Jews, Buddhists etc. are inclined to complain when images offensive to their religious sensibilities are published, Muslims follow up with Molotov cocktails or worse. I notice few if any followers of Islam are actually speaking against the actions of the fanatics.

The proper response to offensive free speech is MORE free speech, and these bikers have it right, they are coming in person to demonstrate their solidarity with the bereaved and provide a counterpoint to the protesters (but are not offering any violence or threats to the protesters). The true sin would be to sit quietly while someone makes offensive, incorrect or misleading statements and did nothing to counter them. With the rise of the Internet and alternative publication venues like Blogs, there is no excuse not to speak up, if the editor won't publish your letter, publish it yourself.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (21 Feb 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> As much I despise these "protesters", the right to free speech is so powerful that attempts to constrain it for ANY reason are wrong.
> 
> The cartoon issue in Denmark (and now here, with the Blogosphere and Western Standard [among others] publishing the cartoons in Canada) shows just how far it can go, the Islamofascists are threatening publishers with death, and the more *ahem* culturally sensitive MSM are refusing to publish the cartoons for the simple reason that while Christians, Jews, Buddhists etc. are inclined to complain when images offensive to their religious sensibilities are published, Muslims follow up with Molotov cocktails or worse. I notice few if any followers of Islam are actually speaking against the actions of the fanatics.
> 
> The proper response to offensive free speech is MORE free speech, and these bikers have it right, they are coming in person to demonstrate their solidarity with the bereaved and provide a counterpoint to the protesters (but are not offering any violence or threats to the protesters). The true sin would be to sit quietly while someone makes offensive, incorrect or misleading statements and did nothing to counter them. With the rise of the Internet and alternative publication venues like Blogs, there is no excuse not to speak up, if the editor won't publish your letter, publish it yourself.



You HAVE to be joking.  Your 19 year old son gets killed in Iraq and you want to bury him quietly and peacefully, when all of a sudden the ding-dong brigade shows up with signs saying he deserved to die because his country doesn't discriminate against homosexuals (which is irrelevant to your son because odds are 99 to 1 he was heterosexual to begin with), and just when they get wound up some other dudes on motorcycles roll in and start waving flags  - and this is your idea of the way to handle things?

There is NO SUCH THING AS ABSOLUTE FREE SPEECH.  You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, and if the US Senate has their way, there will be no "right" to demonstrate at some poor bastards funeral, either.  

As it should be.


----------



## mo-litia (21 Feb 2006)

Michael,

I completely disagree with you.  Free speech must be held above all other constraints on society, as it is in the US, or a country runs the risk of becoming the politically correct banana republic that Canada is today.

Never suppress free speech - no matter how odious it may be.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (21 Feb 2006)

That's a bit ironic coming from someone who just reported a post...


----------



## George Wallace (21 Feb 2006)

Mike

You beat me to it.  Funny how his posts are "Freedom of Speech", but Michael can't exercise the same "Freedom".  

If you are going to Report a Post to Moderator, don't be a hypocrite.  Where do 'your freedoms' begin and end?


----------



## mo-litia (21 Feb 2006)

Talk about airing dirty laundry.  I've seen people here disciplined for far less; but when one of your 'yes-men' steps out of line, then that's okay in your books, not to mention shouting me down in public over a PM where I was just asking you to apply YOUR rules in a fair manner. 

Typical army.ca nonsense...don't bother standing up for yourself UNLESS you're part on the 'in-group'.

The DS here ought to be more impartial - a LOT more impartial.


----------



## the 48th regulator (21 Feb 2006)

So should crusaders that cry free speech is an unlimited right, when not used agaisnt them.

dileas

tess


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (21 Feb 2006)

It's not airing dirty laundry, it's free speech. 

In all seriousness, I reviwed the post and your complaint. I did not see where the Conduct Guidelines were breached, feel free to post (or PM) me with the specifics.


----------



## mo-litia (21 Feb 2006)

Arrggh! 

I think the main issue here is differing world views that are NEVER going to find much common ground to stand on...and yes, the complaint is dropped...free speech and all.  

I just hope this is remembered the next time that I step on someone's toes here...because I'll freely admit that baiting Easterners is rather enjoyable for a Redneck Albertan.  :dontpanic:


----------



## Zoomie (21 Feb 2006)

mo-litia said:
			
		

> but when one of your 'yes-men' steps out of line, then that's okay in your books,



You don't know how far off the mark you could possibly be in this matter.  Michael Dorosh is a long-time member of these means as has contributed a fair bit - but he is "his own man" and toes his own line.

Mo-litia, your comments irk me and I don't know you from a hole in the wall.  Your stance on free-speech is admirable, but I find it hard to imagine you existing in the CF.  I don't how the Loyal Eddies do it, but in the CF we don't practice free speech (at all) and we usually do not publicly denigrate the country to which we are laying our lives on the line for...  I would humbly suggest that you practice a little less free speech before my irksome attitude becomes more official...


----------



## mo-litia (21 Feb 2006)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Mo-litia, your comments irk me and I don't know you from a hole in the wall.  ...  I would humbly suggest that you practice a little less free speech before my irksome attitude becomes more official...



Aww shucks.  Guess I reckon I'll be a good ole' boy now that you've helped me see the light.

On second thought, no.  Go become as 'official' as you want - I've done nothing to be ashamed of.  :threat:


----------



## Hunter (21 Feb 2006)

MO - I'm dying of curiosity to know what you thought could have POSSIBLY contravened the guidelines in that post.  Was it because his point was valid and he shot you down?  I would think you would be used to that by now.  Suck it up buttercup.  

Freedom of speech is not absolute, and it comes with a great deal of responsibility.  Your right to free speech stops as soon as you start infringing on someone else's right.  Like, for example, when burying your son I believe you have the right not to hear Fred Phelps and his gang of idiots chanting 'god hates fags'.


----------



## mo-litia (21 Feb 2006)

Hunter said:
			
		

> MO - I'm dying of curiosity to know what you thought could have POSSIBLY contravened the guidelines in that post.  Was it because his point was valid and he shot you down?  I would think you would be used to that by now.  Suck it up buttercup.
> 
> Freedom of speech is not absolute, and it comes with a great deal of responsibility.  Your right to free speech stops as soon as you start infringing on someone else's right.  Like, for example, when burying your son I believe you have the right not to hear Fred Phelps and his gang of idiots chanting 'god hates fags'.



The matter is dropped.  FYI, it had nothing to do with what you are referring to.  It's just that the guidelines here are so ambiguous that your telling me to 'Suck it up, buttercup' could be construed as abusive if taken in the proper context.  :boring:

Freedom of speech *SHOULD* be absolute-and I think these bikers are taking the correct response to an issue that irks them.  They, unlike you, recognize that the anti-war protesters have a right to protest *WHEREVER* they want.  They also know that they, the bikers, are well within their rights to make a powerful show of support for the military by attending these funerals.

This is how it should be.  To ban ANY protesters would be the true insult to the soldiers that are being buried.  I am sure none of them signed up for the military thinking that their deaths would, in a small way, be responsible for a further erosion of civil liberties and the right to free speech in their country.


----------



## Danjanou (21 Feb 2006)

mo-litia said:
			
		

> ....I'll freely admit that baiting Easterners is rather enjoyable for a Redneck Albertan.  :dontpanic:



Speaking as one of the poor Easterners here, it's technically only baiting if you're getting a rise out of us, and you ain't, sorry. Hey but thanks for playing. 8)


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Feb 2006)

..and just so everyone knows,please feel free to punch out any protesters at my funeral.....


----------



## Danjanou (21 Feb 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> ..and just so everyone knows,please feel free to punch out any protesters at my funeral.....



So noted, I may have to write that one down though to remember it, because I'm hoping that day is in the distant future.


----------



## Cloud Cover (21 Feb 2006)

mo-litia said:
			
		

> Freedom of speech *SHOULD* be absolute-


But it isn't. Accept that and move on because you can't change it. 


> They also know that they, the bikers, are well within their rights to make a powerful show of support for the military by attending these funerals.


Its the family that needs support at this point, not the military. 
The most important thing you can have is family. These poor people have earned the right to grieve in peace and privacy.   

Bruce et al- punches are for wakes and reading of the will, not funerals.


----------



## mo-litia (21 Feb 2006)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> The most important thing you can have is family. These poor people have earned the right to grieve in peace and privacy.



Yes they have-but not at the expense of other's rights to protest peacefully.

That's it for me, unless someone else has some new light that they wish to shed on this matter.


----------



## Michael OLeary (21 Feb 2006)

> FORT CAMPBELL, Kentucky (AP) -- Wearing vests covered in military patches, a band of motorcyclists rolls around the country from one soldier's funeral to another, cheering respectfully to overshadow *jeers from church protesters*.
> 
> ......
> 
> The bikers shield the families of dead soldiers from the protesters, and overshadow the jeers with *patriotic chants* and a sea of red, white and blue flags.



Please define "peacefully" in your free speech context that would allow these people to grieve without unwelcome distractions.

Please imagine such a demonstration at the funeral of a close relation of your own as you describe how both can occur simultaneously at the same place.


----------



## mo-litia (21 Feb 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Please define "peacefully" in your free speech context that would allow these people to grieve without unwelcome distractions.
> 
> Please imagine such a demonstration at the funeral of a close relation of your own as you describe how both can occur simultaneously at the same place.



peace·ful    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (psfl)
adj. 
Undisturbed by strife, turmoil, or disagreement; tranquil. See Synonyms at calm. 
Inclined or disposed to peace; peaceable. 
Of or characteristic of a condition of peace. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
peaceful·ly adv. 
peaceful·ness n.

I would take it to mean-in this context-that a protest should be allowed to proceed so long as they do not physically harm, block, or intimidate those attending such a funeral.  

*That is the right of the protesters.  They are obviously respecting the rights of others in this regard as their have been no arrests-to my knowledge-of any protesters at funerals.*

If we ban protesting at funerals, what's next?  Banning criticisms of the government?  Religion?  This is not a road that a free society wishes to embark on.


----------



## Michael OLeary (21 Feb 2006)

Would you support that the description of the funeral in the article meets that definition?  Do the feelings of the grieving family have any merit to be considered?

And would you, personally, support such behaviour disrupting (by undue jeers and chants) your own mother's funeral? And defend their right to do so against your own relatives' protests that it is disrespectful?

Of course, it's easy to say you would when it's just typing on the internet.


----------



## mo-litia (21 Feb 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Would you support that the description of the funeral in the article meets that definition?  Do the feelings of the grieving family have any merit to be considered?
> 
> And would you, personally, support such behaviour disrupting (by undue jeers and chants) your own mother's funeral? And defend their right to do so against your own relatives' protests that it is disrespectful?
> 
> Of course, it's easy to say you would when it's just typing on the internet.



I think that the right to peacefully protest is to be held above all else.  It is when the government starts to ban assembly and free speech that the road to a police state starts.

And, since you insist on drawing my mother into this thread, yes, I would defend this right at her funeral.  In regards to my relatives, let's just say that I am thankful they, unlike you, believe that freedom is more important than the coddling of one's feelings.


----------



## Michael OLeary (21 Feb 2006)

So, since you chose to avoid answering to the point, I can assume that you agree that the described events do not meet your defintion of "peaceful"?

Forgive me if I feel that your opinion would most likely change if you had a personal emotional involvement.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Feb 2006)

Trivia time folks,...who said this on January 20th 2006?

_A caveat that I HOPE would be added to such a compromise law would be a restriction upon any direct contact between media members  and the mourners; privacy should be protected at occasions such as a funeral._


----------



## mo-litia (21 Feb 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> So, since you chose to avoid answering to the point, I can assume that you agree that the described events do not meet your defintion of "peaceful"?



I made my position to your queries quite clear in my last posts.

Since you seem to have trouble wrapping your mind around what I have said, I will make it very clear:
*
The right of people people to peacefully protest should not be restricted in any way, shape or form.  This is one of those occurrences.*

Thankfully, people who allow feelings to overwhelm rational thought-like you-are usually not responsible for law making in our society.  At the very least, they are restrained by the democratic process.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 Feb 2006)

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/38792/post-324005.html#msg324005

Umm Alex was it mo-litia and if so seems to flip flop more then the liberals and conservatives combined.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Feb 2006)

Correct,  are you going for "flipp-flopps" for $200? ;D


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 Feb 2006)

maybe he'll take his ball and go home for the night.


----------



## Michael OLeary (21 Feb 2006)

mo-litia said:
			
		

> I made my position to your queries quite clear in my last posts.
> 
> Since you seem to have trouble wrapping your mind around what I have said, I will make it very clear:
> *
> ...




You are still refusing to answer how the described protests meet the definition of peaceful that YOU provided.

We are not talking about these groups gathering and chanting on the lawn at city hall on a Saturday afternoon, we are talking about this specific case when a funeral service was in session, where common coutesy might suggest allowing the family to grieve in peace.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Feb 2006)

CFL said:
			
		

> maybe he'll take his ball and go home for the night.



Maybe he'll take his arguement back to it's own thread and quit cluttering two with his thoughts.

That is NOT a suggestion. Put this back on track or the lock happens.


----------



## Danjanou (21 Feb 2006)

CFL said:
			
		

> Jerk off:
> see mo-litia





			
				mo-litia said:
			
		

> What exactly are you saying here?



Looked to me like he was exercising his right to free speech  ;D


----------



## Sig_Des (21 Feb 2006)

mo-litia said:
			
		

> Yes they have-but not at the expense of other's rights to protest peacefully.
> 
> That's it for me, unless someone else has some new light that they wish to shed on this matter.



How is having a quiet, dignified ceremony without a bunch of people yelling slogans and that you're loved one died because God wanted to punish the country and hates homosexuals, at the expense of others rights?

You want to protest peacefully at my funeral? Fine, stay away, sit down somewhere, and keep you mouths shut. If I was at a funeral of a loved one, and these wack-o's showed up, I'd be hard-pressed to be "peaceful"


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Feb 2006)

To try and bring this back on topic.......lets go back to Zoomie's post about the CF not practising free speech, well neither do the US militaries either.
So Mo-litia please tell us were you have this concept of absolute free speech?
...and also, during your tour, how many orders did you respond with " well thats really stupid" or did you say "yes sir" anyway?

So what would that constitute?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (21 Feb 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Trivia time folks,...who said this on January 20th 2006?
> 
> _A caveat that I HOPE would be added to such a compromise law would be a restriction upon any direct contact between media members  and the mourners; privacy should be protected at occasions such as a funeral._



Yes, and he has the gall to complain when I opine publicly that trying to discuss anything with him is like beating one's head against a wall.


----------



## mo-litia (21 Feb 2006)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Maybe he'll take his arguement back to it's own thread and quit cluttering two with his thoughts.
> 
> That is NOT a suggestion. Put this back on track or the lock happens.



Hey, you with the mil stick: I already attempted to leave this thread.  



			
				mo-litia said:
			
		

> That's it for me, unless someone else has some new light that they wish to shed on this matter.



Others kept commenting, so I kept posting.  Kinda what a forum is about, eh?

In regards to what I posted earlier on this matter in a different thread-here it is in it's entirety:



			
				mo-litia said:
			
		

> It seems to me that the most likely result of this law-if passed-will be that the protesters will appeal-successfully   :-\-that THEIR rights are being violated by having their right of protest taken away.
> 
> A compromise will likely occur in the courts, allowing people to protest a certain distance from the funeral, with some restrictions given on the amount of noise they are allowed to generate, etc, so that they can not interfere with the funeral or intrude upon the grief of the mourners.  A caveat that I HOPE would be added to such a compromise law would be a restriction upon any direct contact between media members and the mourners; privacy should be protected at occasions such as a funeral.
> 
> I don't agree with inbred, anti-military hillbillies protesting at a soldier's funeral but we have to keep in mind that troops should not be dying for freedom when freedoms are being taken away in their own country.



I admit that my choice of words could be taken as unfortunate, given what has transpired in this thread today, but I stand by what I have said.  *I didn't say that I supported such a law, only that one would likely be passed*. 

With respect to privacy at a funeral, I will go back to my earlier comment today that a peaceful protest should not physically harm, block, or intimidate those attending.  This isn't a flip-flop from from any earlier position, rather it is a continuation of it.

The _almighty DS_ has decreed that this topic is off track, so I will comment no more on this matter.  Feel free to snipe away at me for not responding further.   :boring:

Back to the topic I am sure we can ALL agree on: kudos to those bikers for protesting the wing-nuts and supporting the military (and families) by being at those funerals.


----------



## Michael OLeary (21 Feb 2006)

I have no need to snipe.

You failed to prove that the situation under discussion met your own stated conditions supporting "peaceful" protest under the label of "unrestrcted free speech".


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Feb 2006)

..and since we are swerving anyway this quote makes me wonder what kind of " Redneck Albertan" you really are,

Quote from Mo-litia,
_Freedom of speech SHOULD be absolute-and I think these bikers are taking the correct response to an issue that irks them.  They, unlike you, recognize that the anti-war protesters have a right to protest WHEREVER they want.  They also know that they, the bikers, are well within their rights to make a powerful show of support for the military by attending these funerals_

Hmmm, a " Redneck Albertan" who doesn't believe in "property rights"?.....doesn't sound like the Albertans I know.


----------



## Kat Stevens (21 Feb 2006)

Feel free to protest on my land.  I've got loads of rock salt... >... for my water softener, of course.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 Feb 2006)

Is it legal to put bounding Bettys in/on your own property?


----------



## Trinity (21 Feb 2006)

CFL said:
			
		

> Is it legal to put bounding Bettys in/on your own property?



only in Texas


um.. thread totally destroyed

Mo-litia  - proved wrong in public opinion

Pile on over????

Lock?


----------



## Cloud Cover (21 Feb 2006)

Sigh ...  don't kill it yet.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 Feb 2006)

Ya this pile on didn't end up nearly as well as this one.
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/40094.0.html


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 Feb 2006)

But whiskey I thought Blood made the grass grow. ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Feb 2006)

mo-litia said:
			
		

> Hey, you with the mil stick: I already attempted to leave this thread.



To bad I was out for the evening. I would have answered sooner. I don't care about your excuses, if you'd really wanted to leave, you would have. The smilie IMHO is bullshit. Count this as your freebie from me.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Feb 2006)

Restrictions on free speech need to be as light as possible.

As a small l libertarian, the only restriction I impose or respect is the idea that you have free speech, *but not in my house.* In practical terms, if you choose to say things which are offensive, inaccurate or misleading in a public forum, I can (and should) challenge them with my free speech. If I am in my own house, I can choose to respond to a guest who makes offensive, misleading or inaccurate statements, but I can also tell them to leave. When I am a guest (like here, for example), I refrain from making offensive, inaccurate or misleading statements as much as possible, since I am Mike's guest. If I stray from the guidelines, he can ask me to leave.

Frankly, so long as both the gay bashers and bikers stay off the church and cemetery property and are not trespassing on people's lawns, there is nothing that can or should be done. The police can certainly be called to disperse them if they are making a public nuisance of themselves (blocking the roads and so on).

Say your piece, but don't be surprised if people take issue with you. If you can't back up what you say with facts, logic and rigorous arguments ("Oh yeah" doesn't count), then you probably shouldn't have said it in the first place.


----------



## ChopperHead (23 Feb 2006)

You're a redneck? I  don't think so. How many rednecks out there are bleeding heart side with the protester hippies? NONE rednecks are for the the most part the patriotic right winged type. Personally I say send in the cops with riot gear and give them something to remember them by  :threat: but hey one can only dream. since when are **** ****  anti-military? I think you have your stereotypes confused. 

I personally have a problem with **** ****,  thats just my opinion and my views on things like it or not thats how I feel so don't flame me for it.  If free speech should be absolutely upheld no matter what then what about hate crimes? what about slander? Spreading false information? what your telling me is that I  should be able to go to Ottawa stand on top of the Parliament buildings holding a Nazi flag yelling zig heil! and that would be acceptable? when people are allowed  to do whatever they want then whats the point of having a government anyway? sounds to me like you're  an Anarchist













Modified for offensive language and incorrect spelling

Free speech may be acceptable but will not be used to contravine the site guidelines in an offensive way

Slim
STAFF


----------



## mo-litia (23 Feb 2006)

I wasn't going to reply to anymore posts here but I just *HAD* to say something _to respond to Chopperhead's articulate, well-thought post.  _  :

If you want to go stand on top of Parliament Hill with a Nazi flag and yell zig (sic) heil, you're a freaking moron.  But you should be able to have the right to do it.  

Can you give me any reason why us right-wing types, (To be fair, your last Nazi comment leads me to suspect that you may be just a_ little _ more right-wing than me.), should be the only ones to have freedom of expression as you have implied in your last post? 

Doesn't seem very fair to me... ^-^


----------



## WCST (23 Feb 2006)

In regards to the original post - I think a lack of decency is what is happening, not an over-abunance of free speech. It's a funeral, for God's sake. Someone has just lost their child, brother, or husband in  an act of war (whether we think it's a useless war or not is a different debate). To denigrate their memory by protesting against homosexuality or protecting the family against that is just ridiculous.

It's bad enough a family and friends are grieving a loss, but to have not one but TWO groups of *sshats shouting and demonstrating during that time is just sickening. And a little bit frightening too.

Every time I read garbage like that, it makes me more glad I'm Canadian.

M :brickwall:


----------



## a_majoor (23 Feb 2006)

mo-litia said:
			
		

> I wasn't going to reply to anymore posts here but I just *HAD* to say something _to respond to Chopperhead's articulate, well-thought post.  _  :
> 
> If you want to go stand on top of Parliament Hill with a Nazi flag and yell zig (sic) heil, you're a freaking moron.  But you should be able to have the right to do it.
> 
> ...



Demonstrating on Parliament Hill is a well established tradition, if person "A" wants to promote National Socialism (a very *Left wing * phenomena, by the way [see my pervious post on offensive, misleading or inaccurate]), then person "B" should have an equal right to promote libertarianism or whatever other political philosophy they choose. "A" and "B" can have a debate wherever they can find a forum, but screaming matches, threats or use of violence (see "Brownshirts", another *left wing* phenomena) are not free speech.

I have the right to listen, join in on which side of the issue I feel strongly about, invite one, both or neither into my "house" and so on (as do you).
WCST is correct in pointing out what is happening in this case is more a case of lack of manners than a free speech issue.


----------



## mo-litia (23 Feb 2006)

No argument about this whole can of worms being more of a lack of manners than a free speech issue; but nonetheless, it is STILL a free speech issue.  

Thankfully I haven't heard much about the SA running around Parliament Hill these days; I think those brownshirts would make them very distinct targets for brown PEOPLE.  ;D


----------



## Glorified Ape (23 Feb 2006)

I can't believe anyone would be so undignified and inconsiderate to disturb a soldier's funeral. If I'm not mistaken, these protesters (the bible-thumpers, not the bikers) would qualify for hate-speech charges if they did the same thing up here, would they not? If so, just another good example of the good such laws can do. 

We're not talking about restricting the rights of people to criticize government tax policy on parliament lawn here, we're talking about a group of homophobes spewing hateful rhetoric (in the course of criticizing the government's policy of allowing homosexuals to freely exist in the country) at a soldier's funeral. Imagine this was a case of a group espousing the extermination of all Jews, at a holocaust memorial service, under the auspice of criticizing the government's allowing Jews to live in Canada? I don't know about you, but I can do without such things in my society and have no problem with the government preventing it through incarceration. 

Such limitations on freedom of speech are no more a totalitarian imposition or likely to lead to an oppressive, authoritarian police state than the no-nukes limitation on arms ownership or the age restriction on voting are.


----------



## mo-litia (23 Feb 2006)

Does anyone here think that Canada's hate law will likely fall if it is ever challenged?  If so, why? If not, why not?

(And yes, I'm jumping back into this thread - this is too interesting too watch from the sidelines.  )


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Feb 2006)

Well, even after a previous attempt to bring it back to it original subject, you still insist on persuing your current course. Now your latest post. Thanks for tearing it right off the rails and making the original subject useless. If you want an answer to your question, start another thread. If you insist on derailing threads to persue your own agenda, you may want to review the guidelines first. You've been warned.

If anyone wishes to address the original subject of this thread, petition a Mod.


----------



## cameron_highlander (24 Apr 2006)

http://thatvideosite.com/view/2178.html

I couldn't find this posted elsewhere. 

It's an interview with a representative from the Westboro Baptist Church, the wackos who pray for IED's and ruin soldier's funerals in the US. It's funny, seeing her get torn into by the interviewers and still refusing to stray rom her rigid 'God will kill you' line. 

It's here because it's funny (her getting ripped into). No need for debates or any "f*** those f****ing f****ers" type comments. 

Enjoy.  

And yeah, I know it's old news.


----------



## medicineman (24 Apr 2006)

She obviously hadn't read the 11th Commandement - "Though shalt not smoke crack".

She reminded me of Jim Morrsion when he was singing "When you're strange" on camera once - he didn't blink through the whole song.  She blinked (the odd time), but had her happy Khrishna face on the entire time.

Oh well - her right to free speech was bought and paid for...

MM


----------



## nULL (24 Apr 2006)

The most irritating thing about that show, I thought, was that the lack of etiquette on behalf of the host. Say what you will about the CBC, at least it's professional.


----------



## medicineman (24 Apr 2006)

I agree unfortunately - they're both preachers I think trying to force their views down her throat as well.

MM


----------



## Trinity (24 Apr 2006)

ok....  

edit - removed entire post.... replacing with

WOW - what a nut....

Not even a recognized church by any group although they call themselves Baptists

80% of the church members are family and not even 100 members.

Oh, and we're not Christians.. only they are.   Uh huh....

I think we should change the name of the thread* from crazy Christians, to crazy CULT*
because there is nothing Christian about their hatred.


----------



## Korus (24 Apr 2006)

The moral of the story is that extremists, wether they be left-wing, right-wing, Christian extremists, Muslim extremists, cultish extremists, or whatever, are all just tards.


----------



## Patrolman (24 Apr 2006)

I agree with Trinity on this. Be careful not to get any paint on me with your brush. I have been a Christian my whole life and a soldier for 9 1/2. Being one has not affected the other in any way. If anything it has made me a better soldier. Painting us all with the same brush is not fair, maybe you could change you Thread Title?


----------



## Patrolman (24 Apr 2006)

There are so many Christians out there who give us a bad name. Some other threads on forum like Christian Peacemakers, The nut from Trading spouses and now these guys. No offense to Piper I just didn't want people on this thread to look at us all in the same light as those I previously mentioned. It is hard sometimes for people to differentiate between cults,wacos from Waco, extremists from the average Christian.


----------



## Springroll (24 Apr 2006)

The bonus, Patrolman, is that most of us with at least half a brain know that those you spoke of, are part of a very small minority.


----------



## Trinity (24 Apr 2006)

Springroll said:
			
		

> The bonus, Patrolman, is that most of us with at least half a brain know that those you spoke of, are part of a very small minority.



The problem is Springroll, the percentage of people with at least half a brain is few!


----------



## Pea (24 Apr 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> The problem is Springroll, the percentage of people with at least half a brain is few!



+1 to that Trinity...


----------



## COBRA-6 (24 Apr 2006)

Crazier than a shit-house rat... anyone else feel like slaping that stupid grin of her face??

What they put those grieving families through is unforgivable...    I truly hope the bikers that are now guarding the soldiers funerals give her and her group a world class monkey stomping!


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (24 Apr 2006)

Yep...crazy knows no boundaries. My sympathys to the families as well. Terrible what some people will do thinking that they are doing good isn't it?


----------



## Pearson (24 Apr 2006)

Must not comment....must.......not...............comment.......


----------



## Conquistador (25 Apr 2006)

The wikipedia article on Fred Phelps (the leader of the church) is a good read - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps

I think this is another one of his scams, the church (mostly his family, who almost are all lawyers) picks two totally controversial topics, gays and the war and Iraq, and exploits them, pissing off as many people as they can, then sue the crap out of anyone who pisses them off.


----------



## nULL (26 Apr 2006)

Piper said:
			
		

> I don't think the interviwers were unprofessional, they were giving this lady what she deserved. Questioning her, her church, their beliefs and their methods. Say what you will about the CBC, when the interviewer isn't totally clueless (watch an interview about anything military or political) or biased (Liberal mouthpiece that they are) or just plain dumb.
> 
> And look, I asked to keep this thread nice and look what I go and do.  :



I could care less what the subject does to "deserve" the host's scorn; I resent the fact that MY position is symbolized by the interviewer acting like a preachy piece of gutter trash. The lady's position was sufficiently low that the host did not need to meet her halfway. 

As to the CBC being Liberal mouthpieces or clueless...you've taken Western society for granted if you think The Passionate Eye is akin to government propaganda.


----------



## Trinity (26 Apr 2006)

That's way too much information to ever surf (wiki on Phelps)

I cut out a few interesting parts from the article.  


> Fred's position at Eastside was shortlived; as some congregants would recall years later, he was a "reverend from Hell." Almost immediately his sermons exhibited the hate-filled spirit which would later characterize his ministry. For example, as a means of encouraging the wives and children to "submit to the father's authority in the home," Phelps began encouraging his congregants to beat them if necessary; he was once forced to bail one of his parishioners out of jail after counseling the man to punch his wife in the face until she became "subjugated." Parishioners of Eastside recall one of Phelps' sermons in particular (which ironically references his high-school boxing talent):
> *A good left hook makes for a right fine wife. Brethren, they can lock us up, but we'll still do what the Bible tells us to do. Either our wives are going to obey, or we're going to beat them! [22]*
> 
> 
> ...



That's litereally a small highlight of the information.  Its amazing how messed up this guy is.


----------



## winchable (26 Apr 2006)

She's neat...but I know Christians and that ain't Christian.

Hannity and Colmbs (colmes?) are mouthpieces at times and my only issue with him is that he's called this woman on the air to berate her, I mean...what's the point??? She alludes that they've spoken before, he has to know what he's getting here, how can they qualify it as news or debate...or anything above Jerry Springer like entertainment.
 He says at one point "You're popular" or something to that effect, but I mean..clearly...Come on even she didn't think they were popular.

I've always, always, always, always had a problem with people saying they know God's will, I don't understand how they're not conflicted by that!!! There are Clerics who support horrible things who do the same thing "I know what God wants....but that's not blasphemy."


----------



## Steel Badger (27 Apr 2006)

What have the Christians ever done for us anyway?


----------



## Trinity (27 Apr 2006)

Steel Badger said:
			
		

> What have the Christians ever done for us anyway?



Knowing that you're not a troll....

would you care to elaborate?

Religion has done many excellent things as well as many horrible things.
Is there something specific you are referring too?


----------



## Centurian1985 (27 Apr 2006)

Ooh, ooh, let me, let me !!! ... 

Other than the concepts of distribution of wealth, social order and structure, refinement of language, propogation of written knowledge, development of modern politics, the propogation of western culture that resulted in discoveries of new continents, the belief in equality, development of legal rights, concepts of logical debate, basic human rights, the concept of global order, systems of public education, plus contributions to the sciences, music, the arts, other concepts of individuality, expression of thought, refinement of the arts, religious tolerance, supremacy of the mind over the body, traditions of public service, negotiation and compromise betwen warring parties, common values, materialism, capitolism, humanitarianism, a basic groundwork of ethics, a basis of morality, a hard work ethic, and monotheism, ...

...what has Christianity ever done for  *us*?


----------



## Kat Stevens (27 Apr 2006)

sure, but what has it done for us LATELY?


----------



## Trinity (27 Apr 2006)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> sure, but what has it done for us LATELY?



Well, they give me money. Who cares what they do for you....  ;D


----------



## Centurian1985 (27 Apr 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> Well, they give me money. Who cares what they do for you....  ;D



 :rofl:


----------



## bLUE fOX (27 Apr 2006)

This is just as an aside, but have you ever looked at any of the stuff god wants? according to the bellow listed site there's a lot of stuff we're missing out, but no body wants to protest that. stupid not being allowed to be polyamourous.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/


----------



## Steel Badger (27 Apr 2006)

LOL 

Glad someone picked up on that!


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (27 Apr 2006)

I really hate to do this, but I have to back Trinity on this one.  As a heathen, I have had my fill of intolerant Christians, but this chick is something else entirely.  I guess every lunatic has the right to choose their own label, and this one happened to choose Christian.  She could call herself Mary Queen of Scots, or the Tooth Fairy, and it wouldn't make her any more worth listening to.  That these people should choose to disrupt a military funeral with their garbage is unconscionable.  Now that these people have drawn public attention, perhaps their "church" could use a close examination of its finances and operations for irregularities.  I've never known a flake yet that could survive an audit, and shining a light on cockroaches like this has a tendance to make them run back under their rocks. :-*


----------



## Trinity (27 Apr 2006)

mainerjohnthomas said:
			
		

> I really hate to do this, but I have to back Trinity on this one.



That's it... young padawan...

Come to the darkside.  

besides, we have punch and pie!!!


----------



## Thompson_JM (28 Apr 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> That's it... young padawan...
> 
> Come to the darkside.
> 
> besides, we have punch and pie!!!



Better not be like that punch they served at the last big religion get together i was at... Everyone just fell asleep after Muttering something about meeting some aliens in some spaceship....


----------



## Centurian1985 (28 Apr 2006)

Personally, Im an agnostic and dont worry about what god wants.  I think its more important to do well by your fellow man.  If thats in line with what He wants, then good on me!


----------



## rmc_wannabe (28 Apr 2006)

Extremists are one thing......Christians are another. What that woman is preahching has about as much to do with Christianity as Suicide bombings has to Islam. Sad that some people use Christ's name to permit their ignorance  :


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (29 Apr 2006)

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> Extremists are one thing......Christians are another. What that woman is preahching has about as much to do with Christianity as Suicide bombings has to Islam. Sad that some people use Christ's name to permit their ignorance  :



Well said. I totally agree with you.

Trinity my man, don't be so sure the Church is going to give you money!! Ha ha just kidding...although 3 years into civilian ministry and starting to dip into my RRSPs to help support my family was one of the deciding factors behind me joining the Reg Force....aren't I encouraging to a young student Padre eh?? :


----------



## Trinity (29 Apr 2006)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> Trinity my man, don't be so sure the Church is going to give you money!! Ha ha just kidding...although 3 years into civilian ministry and starting to dip into my RRSPs to help support my family was one of the deciding factors behind me joining the Reg Force....aren't I encouraging to a young student Padre eh?? :



Hey.. I'm single and loving it.  

I can live off Kraft Dinner and Corn Pops....


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (29 Apr 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> Hey.. I'm single and loving it.
> 
> I can live off Kraft Dinner and Corn Pops....



And eat like a pig when you go on weekends with your Unit??? lol

Hey are you going to sign up for a tour when you are Ordained and up to speed??

LFWA is doing the next tour in Aug I think and then LFAA is doing the one next Feb....should be LFCA again in summer 07 or maybe it'll be SQFT...can't remember...too deep in the Navy world now I guess.

Friends are going next Feb though....at least two Regs from Gagetown and a Reservist too.


----------



## Trinity (29 Apr 2006)

I'm 32... Send me NOW!  13 years in and no tour. 

Put me in coach, I'm ready to play.

I have a feeling the branch is going to abuse this young pup
if I'm single and experienced.....  Soon I might be crying,
no more tours.. please God.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (29 Apr 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> I'm 32... Send me NOW!  13 years in and no tour.
> 
> Put me in coach, I'm ready to play.
> 
> ...



Naw doesn't really happen that way. We've got no shortage of people wanting to go on tour. 
you're just in your final year of study though areen't you? 

You  have to get your ordination and 2 years Pastoral exp before we can get you on tour.

Branch is going to be expanding over the next few years as we take in more people overall. Lots of positions being created due to the new reorganisation too.


----------



## Trinity (29 Apr 2006)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> Naw doesn't really happen that way. We've got no shortage of people wanting to go on tour.
> you're just in your final year of study though areen't you?



Finished last Oct

ACPO in May
Ordination in June if I don't screw up ACPO.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (29 Apr 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> Finished last Oct
> 
> ACPO in May
> Ordination in June if I don't screw up ACPO.



Cool...God bless as you go to the selection in May.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (5 May 2006)

After posting in support of Trinity, my sense of balance was disturbed, and then this gem came along, and I just had to share.  I have attached a post of mine from one of the Heathen websites I belong to, about the rampant silliness of Christian creationism and its sad attempts at pseudo-science.  It seems that God has told them that God hates squid.....

Hail,
      Those crazy Christian creationists have apparently decided that squid are not alive.  Since by their biblical tradition only red blooded creatures are alive, then squid and other invertebrates that use hemocyanins and other proteins, they cannot be considered alive.  So squid and honey bees are now considered undead?
      Of course since human embryos don't get red blood cells until the fifth week of gestation, then it would render moot the morality of early abortion, and the birth control pill.  You cannot kill what you do not consider alive.  
     
The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:
Shortcut to: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/03/god_hates_squid.php


----------



## Steel Badger (5 May 2006)

I can see it all now:

George Romero's Return of the Undead Squid!


----------



## Kat Stevens (5 May 2006)

.... in a double feature with Night of the Zom-bees..... ;D


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (6 May 2006)

Steel Badger said:
			
		

> I can see it all now:
> 
> George Romero's Return of the Undead Squid!


      Possible drill for undead attack:
One the word of command, platoon will prepare to receive undead!
One-draw fork
Two-deploy tzatziki
Three-DIP!

Upon cessation of attack, platoon will draw issue of pita bread and police the area for unspent tzatziki.

If permitted under current ROE, platoon OC or NCO/IC may request the use of chemical agents to support conventional arms.  The agent of choice is wine (red), dispersal mechanism either glass, or bottle, depending on severity of attack.


----------



## Recon_Guardsman (15 Jun 2006)

Girl I know just linked me to an interview of something called the 'Westboro Baptist Church'. Its basically an anti-Gay organization - using the Bible to back itself up, somehow. These people go to the funerals of dead soldiers who have been killed by IEDs and say that these deaths are caused by God for America (and Canada and Sweden)'s legalization of gay marriage and so on. Its too frustrating for me to describe, check it out yourself. www.GodhatesCanada.com


----------



## Nemo888 (15 Jun 2006)

Thats what happens when you don't take you meds. They even post the times of the funerals on the website. I pray that if there has ever been an ethical hacker he finds this site and fills it with really filthy gay porn.


----------



## Rice0031 (15 Jun 2006)

How can anyone say that God is mad at our country for the way we have dealt with the gay-marriage issue and as such is allowing our soldiers to be killed? I don't comprehend...
As recon_guardsman said, it is somewhat frustrating that someone would say that.

...I don't even know how to respond.


----------



## couchcommander (15 Jun 2006)

The domain is registered via godaddy.com.

They have a terms of use policy that prohibits such content. 

If you like, you can follow my example and email abuse@godaddy.com explaining that you find such content objectionable. 

We'll see tomorrow what their reaction is.


----------



## Nemo888 (15 Jun 2006)

Wouldn't filling the site with gay porn be much more satisfying?


----------



## couchcommander (15 Jun 2006)

Yes, but also illegal.


----------



## Britney Spears (15 Jun 2006)

From wikipedia



> Canada
> 
> On one occasion, Phelps and his congregation had their signs confiscated by customs, and responded by going to the federal capital and burning and spitting on the Canadian flag, and threatening to urinate and defecate on it. Since that time, Canada has passed hate crime legislation, alternatingly referred to by the informal "Fred Phelps Law" and "Jack Chick Law." Phelps has also claimed that his congregation, along with him, have been arrested in Canada for hate speech. Should Phelps ever try to enter Canada again, he would be arrested and tried for violation of hate crime laws, a fact which prompted the founding of "Godhatescanada.com."



The whole article is pretty funny, more so because it's true.


----------



## Rice0031 (15 Jun 2006)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> If you like, you can follow my example and email abuse@godaddy.com explaining that you find such content objectionable.



I agree. I'm sending off an email.


----------



## the 48th regulator (15 Jun 2006)

And if you want to be hip to their jive, check out the media site...loads of fun and shennagians to be had...

Like this fine gem..

http://animation.speakfree.net/animation/rm300k.rm

Like that??  find it all here...

http://www.thesignsofthetimes.net/

K-tells special one day price....All moron sites free..that's right free for this one time offer...Click NOW!!

God,

My head hurts because of these heathens and their internet access.

dileas

tess


----------



## Armymatters (15 Jun 2006)

According to the Wikipedia link, most of the followers are relatives of this Phelps guy... They are one brainwashed family...


----------



## couchcommander (15 Jun 2006)

Check your fire Rice0031!

godaddy.com apparently isn't hosting their content.

They are right it - in my haste I didn't realize the address of the server itself is from Cox Cable, in Atlanta. Contact information to follow.


----------



## Armymatters (15 Jun 2006)

Got the address:
abuse@cox.net

Fire away people.


----------



## couchcommander (15 Jun 2006)

It appears to be a private server. You'll need to convince cox cable to revoke their internet period. It actually hosts their entire line of godhatesamerica, etc. Mention that to the cox people as well. 

For anyone interested, the IP is 70.184.229.60.


----------



## mover1 (15 Jun 2006)

I believe that God does hate Canada
Unfortunately since god doesn't exist and is just a myth like any Greek or Egyptian god's of the past, his views on my country are irrelevant. 

God, Santa, Unicorns, good looking women who cook and clean,  all figments of our imagination and should be treated as such.


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Jun 2006)

Tess - +1, not t mention showing the Canadian flag upside down in the video!


----------



## paracowboy (15 Jun 2006)

I keep sayin' it: Time to cull the herd.
Retroactive abortions all around.


----------



## AcornsRus (15 Jun 2006)

Recon_Guardsman said:
			
		

> check it out yourself. www.GodhatesCanada.com



Man, I can't beleive anyone can have that much hate towards others - not very Christian.  From the web site: 

"Canada hoisted a filthy fag finger in the Face of God "

WOW!  what a line.


----------



## CdnArtyWife (15 Jun 2006)

Wow, this just proves that there are fanatics and extremists in every religion.

It reminds me of something I saw on the Post 9/11 episode of the West Wing entitled ISAAC AND ISHMAEL  :

KKK is to Christianity as Islamic extremists is to Muslim

I think these guys could sit next to the KKK in that equation.


----------



## Franko (15 Jun 2006)

Yep....a bunch of wack jobs who decide that their way is the only way.

Peace and love indeed.....and they call themselves Christians     :

Try to remember that these are the same fanatics who had signs up at soldier's funerals in the US with lovely sayings such as:

God loves a dead soldier.

Seems to me that they were also on MSNBC not too long ago as well....and run straight out the door.

Rubbish.

Regards


----------



## Gramps (15 Jun 2006)

CdnArtyWife said:
			
		

> Wow, this just proves that there are fanatics and extremists in every religion.
> 
> It reminds me of something I saw on the Post 9/11 episode of the West Wing entitled ISAAC AND ISHMAEL  :
> 
> ...




KKK, Aryan Nations, Christian Heritage Front etc. etc. The list goes on and on. 

Edit: Quoted the wrong post.


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Jun 2006)

When something unexpected happens - say, an untimely death - it's all "God works in mysterious ways", "God has a plan", etc.  Why the fcuk are God's ways and plans suddenly shelved when people behave other than according to some idealized template?


----------



## pte. Massecar (15 Jun 2006)

Bescause God gave us free will to do whatever we pelase. Even people who call themselves Christians have free will. The main problem with these people is they have to realize the fundamental part of being a Christian is being Christ-like. Christ hung out with prostitutes and tax collectors, He was better than no one in his own eyes. Fact is He is better than all the people He was with, as He is God on earth. So, basicly these "Christians" think they are better than God. So, they have confused themselves. We are no better than them however, 'cause "He without sin casts the first stone." Big thing to remember he people is these peopel got it all wrong, and even though I am no better, I know this isnt the way to "do what Jesus would do" so to speak.


----------



## Shec (15 Jun 2006)

G-d Hates Canada?

Does He know that? :


----------



## Bobbyoreo (15 Jun 2006)

How can he hate us....we have all this nice green land with huge trees...so many lakes and the woman....oh he loves the woman!!!!!


----------



## vangemeren (15 Jun 2006)

I think the big guy hates *him* because the guy doesn't seem to have much brains (or his family)

I'm always dubious of people telling us to do things because God said so, or that is what he wants/would want.


----------



## darmil (15 Jun 2006)

> Unfortunately since god doesn't exist and is just a myth like any Greek or Egyptian god's of the past, his views on my country are irrelevant.
> 
> God, Santa, Unicorns, good looking women who cook and clean,  all figments of our imagination and should be treated as such.



I agree totally, glorified story book these people are sick in the head. Way too much time on there hands someone should clean this shit up!!!


----------



## medicineman (15 Jun 2006)

These clowns are walking excuses for legislation requiring licenses to breed.

MM


----------



## Hot Lips (15 Jun 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> I keep sayin' it: Time to cull the herd.
> Retroactive abortions all around.


 Yes, yes indeed you have to take a test to get a driver's license but anyone can have a baby  :blotto:

HL


----------



## geo (15 Jun 2006)

It is important for people of ALL faiths to recognize the Four
Religious Truths listed below:

             1. Muslims do not recognize Jews as God's chosen people

             2. Jews do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah.

             3. Protestants do not recognize the Pope as the leader of the
              Christian World.

              4. Baptists do not recognize each other at Hooters.


----------



## Recon_Guardsman (16 Jun 2006)

Hahahahahahahha, hua to that buddy. Its a shame soldiers die so people like that can have freedom of speech. Im just wondering when someone is gonna formally charge them for spreading hate.


----------



## CdnArtyWife (16 Jun 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> It is important for people of ALL faiths to recognize the Four
> Religious Truths listed below:
> 
> 1. Muslims do not recognize Jews as God's chosen people
> ...



They also don't recognize eachother at the liquor store....(as my dad, the Anglican Priest, tells the joke  ;D)


----------



## wotan (16 Jun 2006)

The Westboro Baptist Church is a very small fringe group, mainly centred around one family.  Currenlty, I believe the father of a fallen US Marine is suing them for having protested at his son's funeral with pleasant little signs like "Thank God For IEDs" and "God Killed Your Son", etc.  Hopefully a successful lawsuit will spell the end of their nonsense on that front.

There is also another organization formed in the US of people dedicated to safeguard the funerals of fallen US service personnel from this group and others like them.  This group is mainly made up of motorcycle enthusiasts (non-patch wearing) that "discourage" these folks from protesting near funerals.

At any rate, while we have hate laws in Canada, the US has freedom of speech laws.  As reprehensible as the things they spout are, they are still legally entitled.  As for them hating Canada, well, who cares?  I can't bring myself to feel that their opinions are somehow significant.


----------



## Bob Terwilliger (17 Jun 2006)

I fail to see the purpose in complaining to the ISP who hosts that website. Milton said it better than I ever could, "When a position or idea is suppressed, its does not just go away. The idea takes on a romantic underground life where it flourishes rather than being brought to the light of day where it can be refuted". Having seen the website, I can safely say that any rational person would hardly be swayed by its content.


----------



## couchcommander (17 Jun 2006)

When did people start behaving rationally ???


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (17 Jun 2006)

Recon_Guardsman,  good question,  but they don't have hate laws in the States. (laws against advocating violence against an identifiable group)  In there you can say on the street "All those Narnians are evil and going to hell - we should find a final solution for those Narnians" and it is free speech.  If you do that here - thankfully - one would be arrested.  (and a slap on the wrist - but the police would have you on file, in case any Narnians have bad things happen to them) 

This i the same group that has gone to the funerals of AIDS victims (gay and straight) for 20 years.  I think this is their way of getting attention. (No one cared that they harassed people at funerals until they did it at soldiers funerals) I ache for the day that group comes up here and pulls a stunt like that.  

Here are two homepages,  both churches are Westboro Baptist churches.  Humm ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church_(Topeka) for context
http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/index.html
http://www.westborobaptist.ca/

And before anyone asks why I don't like Narnians - I do.  It was just an example.  C.S. Lewis is a good writer.  (even with the allusions in his writing)
In fact I live DT Toronto and my neighbour is a Narnian.  ;-)


----------



## Black Watch (17 Jun 2006)

since when are we living in a facist country?


----------



## couchcommander (17 Jun 2006)

Black Watch said:
			
		

> since when are we living in a facist country?


???


----------



## zipperhead_cop (17 Jun 2006)

These clods misquote the bible the same way that Muslim terrorist misquote the Koran to justify killing.  The IRA killed lots of folk in the name of the Catholic church.  And for that matter, the bloody history of the Catholic church is worse than any of the world wars.  God has a place in our lives.  Religion helps us find God.  Organized religion ultimately can be manipulated to be used to control people, regardless of who you call God.  
Religion and spirituality should be a personal thing.


----------



## Recon_Guardsman (17 Jun 2006)

That sounds very individualistic... I thought BMQ would have beaten that out of you


----------



## zipperhead_cop (17 Jun 2006)

Recon_Guardsman said:
			
		

> That sounds very individualistic... I thought BMQ would have beaten that out of you



We were all forced to think that way.   ;D


----------



## Black Watch (17 Jun 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> These clods misquote the bible the same way that Muslim terrorist misquote the Koran to justify killing.  The IRA killed lots of folk in the name of the Catholic church.  And for that matter, the bloody history of the Catholic church is worse than any of the world wars.  God has a place in our lives.  Religion helps us find God.  Organized religion ultimately can be manipulated to be used to control people, regardless of who you call God.
> Religion and spirituality should be a personal thing.


I agree with you. I have a friend who is mormon. He told me that it is written in the Bible that God forbides smoking and taking drugs...


----------



## geo (18 Jun 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> These clods misquote the bible the same way that Muslim terrorist misquote the Koran to justify killing.  The IRA killed lots of folk in the name of the Catholic church.  And for that matter, the bloody history of the Catholic church is worse than any of the world wars.  God has a place in our lives.  Religion helps us find God.  Organized religion ultimately can be manipulated to be used to control people, regardless of who you call God.
> Religion and spirituality should be a personal thing.



More wars have been touched off in the name of God than any other cause.
The ulteriour motive is..... shall we say, something completely different.


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (18 Jun 2006)

The convenient thing about religion is that there are so many types out there that cater to any belief and if you can't find one, you can just start your own.


----------



## geo (18 Jun 2006)

............... yeah - but having trouble finding virgins willing to be sacrificed on the altar.


----------



## Hot Lips (18 Jun 2006)

You mean I could become an Evangelist...kinda like Jimmy Baker and make millions from my followers... :

HL


----------



## geo (18 Jun 2006)

yeah - but you'd need a spouse like "tammy Faye" (fate worse than death)


----------



## GAP (18 Jun 2006)

Shudder   :skull:


----------



## couchcommander (18 Jun 2006)

geeeeehh


----------



## Hot Lips (18 Jun 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> yeah - but you'd need a spouse like "tammy Faye" (fate worse than death)


 Hey so I would be like Brokeback Evangelist then...well now that could have quite the following  ;D

HL


----------



## zipperhead_cop (18 Jun 2006)

Hot Lips said:
			
		

> Hey so I would be like Brokeback Evangelist then...well now that could have quite the following  ;D
> 
> HL



Hmmmmm.  Yeah.  I'd still watch.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (18 Jun 2006)

God who?  

enough time wasted....?


----------



## medicineman (18 Jun 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> yeah - but you'd need a spouse like "tammy Faye" (fate worse than death)



On a more humourous note, I read in the news that Tammy Faye just went in for a makeover - when all the war paint was scraped off of her, the found Jimmy Hoffa...

MM


----------



## Taylor187 (18 Jun 2006)

mover1 said:
			
		

> I believe that God does hate Canada
> Unfortunately since god doesn't exist and is just a myth like any Greek or Egyptian god's of the past, his views on my country are irrelevant.
> 
> God, Santa, Unicorns, good looking women who cook and clean,  all figments of our imagination and should be treated as such.



You sir are a man after my own heart. If there was a god, he is the most sadistic son of a bitch for not slaughtering every SOB that trys to preach death in his name.


----------



## pbi (18 Jun 2006)

I just checked out that website....

Wow. Quite scary.

Foil hats, anyone?


Cheers


----------



## zipperhead_cop (18 Jun 2006)

Yeah, that is some pack of arseholes on that website.  More evidence of the harm that organized religion can do.  They almost got their own, though.  Check out these clowns narrowly getting lynched.  

http://animation.speakfree.net/video/20050521_seaford-de.wmv

Of course, it falls to the local police to protect these scum.  That is one seriously worked up crowd.  And as you would expect, look for the typical coward taunting the crowd by waving at them once they are clear.


----------



## Marauder (19 Jun 2006)

I wonder if I walked up to Phelps, called him an inbred sodomite and kicked him in the nuts, could I claim it as God's will? Or could I just answer "42" when the local constabulary ask me why I did it?


----------



## zipperhead_cop (19 Jun 2006)

Marauder said:
			
		

> I wonder if I walked up to Phelps, called him an inbred sodomite and kicked him in the nuts, could I claim it as God's will? Or could I just answer "42" when the local constabulary ask me why I did it?



It would be a good enough answer for me  ;D


----------



## joonrooj (19 Jun 2006)

mover1 said:
			
		

> I believe that God does hate Canada
> Unfortunately since god doesn't exist and is just a myth like any Greek or Egyptian god's of the past, his views on my country are irrelevant.
> 
> God, Santa, Unicorns, good looking women who cook and clean,  all figments of our imagination and should be treated as such.



Not the place to discuss, if you wish to PM me I will be happy to debate God with you, as would many others on this board.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (19 Jun 2006)

How is it that a discussion forum that has a topic about debating God not the place to debate God in a discussion?   ???


----------



## couchcommander (19 Jun 2006)

Oh dear...

Talk about a thread that would never end. It's probably better that we don't get into it.

Thus:

To all you non-Godly types.... believing in God is a matter of faith, many say they have personally experienced God... I'm sorry you will not change their mind with logical analysis... just like you can't change my mind that cheese burgers are yummy... they just are, maybe not for you, but for yes for me. No matter what you can demonstrate, it won't change their view as it's not something that can be "disproven" (if you think otherwise, go look up "faith" in the dictionary and then lookup "tautology"). In the end, get over it. 

To all you Godly types... people do have some very good reasons for not believing in the existance of your God... no, unfortunately any "proof" you can provide as to his existance can be discredited given enough time and effort....get over it.  

My .02 in hopes this doesn't become a pointless re-run of my highschool days.


----------



## mover1 (19 Jun 2006)

I am sorry to all of you who are offended by my religious position, sorry I just do not believe in god.
Respect my views as I respect yours. 

End of debate.


----------



## paracowboy (19 Jun 2006)

mover1 said:
			
		

> I am sorry to all of you who are offended by my religious position, sorry I just do not believe in god.
> Respect my views as I respect yours.
> 
> End of debate.


 I'm assuming a buncha Bible-thumpers are pm-ing you?

If so, this is the Official Word: man's got just as much right to view as you do to yours. He has just as much right to express it. He also doesn't have to debate, explain, or even talk about it again, if he don't want to. 

mover1, anybody becomes a problem about this, let the staff know.


----------



## mover1 (19 Jun 2006)

Thanks Para...


----------



## Acadian10 (20 Jun 2006)

Um, has God told anyone that he hates Canada? I couldn't imagine why God would hate a whole nation...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Jun 2006)

Another one off the rails and circling the train drain. You know the drill.


----------



## Sheerin (31 Jul 2006)

reproduced under fair dealings.... yadda yadda yadda



> * Museum uses bible to tell earth's history*
> 
> By DYLAN T. LOVAN, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 56 minutes ago
> 
> ...



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060731/ap_on_re_us/creation_museum

I love the last line in that article....


----------



## George Wallace (31 Jul 2006)

Wacky!  Deja Vu!  I heard about these guys somewhere before.  

Say it ain't so, crazy Christians?   http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/42541.0.html

Remember Kirk Cameron (aka Mike Seaver)?   http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/42694/post-373242.html#msg373242

Deja Vu!


----------



## Trinity (31 Jul 2006)

> "Genesis is not science," said Mary Dawson, curator emeritus of vertebrate paleontology at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh. "Genesis is a tale that was handed down for generations by people who really knew nothing about science, who knew nothing about natural history, and certainly knew nothing about what fossils were."



I think we all know I'm one of those "CRAZY CHRISTIANS"

and this quote by the scientist is quite correct.  A lot of Gensis has been traced back to a Babylonian myth of how they thought the world was created.

I'm quite interested to see how this place describes the creation of the earth, especially since there are 2 creation stories in Gensis.  I wonder
which one they picked?  : : ;D


----------



## Sheerin (31 Jul 2006)

I'd actually like to visit this museum to see their evidence.

Not saying that i'd agree with their arguments (I'd actually be incredibly surprised if I did), but it would be interesting to see what they present.  Hell, who knows, I might even be able to have an intelligent debate with the curators.  At least, I'd hope that possibility existed.  

Oh and Trinity, if you don't mind my asking, what are your views on the whole creation vs evolution debate?


----------



## Trinity (31 Jul 2006)

God created the world

and still is... and we are co-creators with god at the moment

but.. evolution.. falls more into my beliefs

Who is to say god didn't' mean for evolution to happen.


----------



## GAP (31 Jul 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> Who is to say god didn't' mean for evolution to happen.



Evolution has enough magic all its own to satisfy most people.


----------



## Sheerin (1 Aug 2006)

> God created the world
> 
> and still is... and we are co-creators with god at the moment
> 
> ...



Those are very logical beliefs.  I wish more people on the creationists side were like you, padre.


----------



## HItorMiss (1 Aug 2006)

Well God created the Earth in 6 days, on the 7th he rested.

Now I ask you what is a day to a cosmically powerful world creating being? I think if you look at it that way however many milions of years it took for evolution to happen and reach a relative stasis point makes a lot of sense.


----------



## Journeyman (2 Oct 2006)

Apparently the Westboro Baptist Church claims the soldiers' deaths are a sign of God punishing America for tolerating homosexuality....so they travel the country protesting at soldiers' funerals.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060930/ap_on_re_us/funeral_protests&printer=1;_ylt=Ar0M64yu6Oh7IPFR2CvRcElH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-
[Posted in compliance with applicable copyright laws]


> Protesters face off at Ky. GI's funeral By SAMIRA JAFARI, Associated Press Writer
> Sat Sep 30, 4:16 PM ET
> 
> Demonstrators squared off Saturday outside a funeral home where a service was being held for a solider, the first such scene in Kentucky since a judge suspended a state law that required a 300-foot buffer zone for protests at military funerals.
> ...


----------



## xmarcx (2 Oct 2006)

They've been doing that for about a year now, I think. Keep in mind the church in question has only approx 100 members and about 80 of them are biologically related to the king whacko Fred Phelps. They are also the proud owners of http://www.godhatescanada.com/
Thankfully most states are passing legislation banning these protests or setting minimum distances to give the grieving the peace and respect deserved.


----------



## Journeyman (2 Oct 2006)

xmarcx said:
			
		

> *God Hates Canada *  www.godhatescanada.com



Oh man...that is _hillarious_!  Canada, a homo-fascist state with a filthy fag agenda.
Gee, and when they burned a Canadian flag in religious protest, (that makes it OK  : ), they were reviled by "so-called Christians of Canada."
 :rofl:


----------



## Yrys (2 Oct 2006)

There was a long thread about something similar a year ago

(rev. Phelps and his followers protesting, and bikers protesting the protesters)

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/40076.0.html


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (2 Oct 2006)

This topic has been hashed on quite a bit,  they're freaks and they do their own cause more harm than good.  Which suits me fine.

*God hates Canada?*   http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/45165.0.html

*Dead soldier's home vandalized*  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/40433.0.html  

and it was even nominated in http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/33938/post-260114.html#msg260114  for most ruthless most ruthless terrorist organization. I just love American politics, but truth be told I know people like that up here.  So obsessed with one topic they forget human decency and dignity in a persuit of their goal.


----------



## Trinity (2 Oct 2006)

Fred Phelps is an example of a right wing extremist Christian organization.

There are more than a few of them that are willing to do or say anything
to promote their agenda including killing (just like Muslim extremist aka Taliban).

Case in point - the abortion doctor killings/bombings.  Home grown Christian terrorists.


----------



## Big Foot (2 Oct 2006)

In other news, God also seems to hate Sweden (www.godhatessweden.com) and America (www.godhatesamerica.com). The things these wackos will say and do never ceases to amaze me.


----------



## Rodahn (2 Oct 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> Fred Phelps is an example of a right wing extremist Christian organization.
> 
> There are more than a few of them that are willing to do or say anything
> to promote their agenda including killing (just like Muslim extremist aka Taliban).
> ...



+1 Well stated Trinity......


----------



## Trooper Hale (3 Oct 2006)

simply put, wow...  
Their arguments and points had such depth were obviously well thought out...
I'd never seen that before, whats with the hatred of sweden? That stuff about the royal family was WAY out of order.
I must be reading a different bible to them


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (3 Oct 2006)

No,  same Bible.  The only problem is that you can interpret anything from anything.  It is called "Tendentious".  I can read the Bible, Torah or a box of Cheerios and justify anything I want.  I respect that most religious people are true seekers,  but we can't ignore that some twist dogma to attain their own ends.  Call me a utilitarian,  but we can easily tell the difference by how effective the group is.  How much closer are they to God by their actions,  how much good do they do?


----------



## reccecrewman (3 Oct 2006)

Amusingly, God also apparently hates Germany & Australia.............. He also hates England...... not the UK or Great Britain, but England, so I guess Wales, Scotland & N.Ireland are in his good books............ Surprisingly, run a search, God does not hate Luxembourg, Monaco or Fiji............ With those 3 united, thats the true axis of evil!  ;D Sheesh......... Some people's kids.  I guess this makes Trinity the child of darkness masqueurading amongst the troops spreading talk of false idols and Gods throughout the ranks of Canada's oppressive war machine.................  ;D

Sorry Trinity, I couldn't resist.

Regards


----------



## Journeyman (3 Oct 2006)

reccecrewman said:
			
		

> I guess this makes Trinity the child of darkness...


...funny you should mention that.....   >


----------



## medaid (3 Oct 2006)

sson Canada will unleash its army of mindles, sodomizing, fag, nympho zombies...wow...can you believe this crap? I've been effected by the WBC...must.... blah blah blah blah

hoenstly they should be labelled, banned, and constantly under surveilance by monkeys!  ;D though shalt not forget thy monkeys!


----------



## patrick666 (3 Oct 2006)

They kind of remind me of the crazy family from The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (3 Oct 2006)

I really really really REALLY wish they'd come up here and try to protest at a Canadian military funeral.  They would be ugly red smears on the pavement before the family would even know they were there.  (I am not advocating violence against an identifiable group,  but I am saying that the public here would take immediate and intest steps to protect the family and to punish them for the slight)  I am not saying I'd join in either;  I'm saying I wouldn't have to.   (and No,  they most likely couldn't get into the country)  I remember living in the states,  people seemed almost allergic to curtail personal expression for any reason.  Here we see it as a reasonable limitation in the extream cases ( such as decency, advocating violence etc)   

Now if you look at the signs,  one of them says "thank God for IDE" or something like that.  Isn't that comforting to the Iraqi insurgency to know they have their moral support.... so they're giving comfort to an enemy of the state... also they are helping the insurgency by helping to decrease the moral of forces... so they are giving aid AND comfort to an enemy of the state..... hum... Is there anything we can do about that...?  hummm?  ;-)  

Now on an unrelated topic,  doesn't the US army kick people out for being gay?  Why are they protesting one of the very very few institutions that still actively discriminates against homosexuals?  But then again,  not much they do or say makes much sense to me.


----------



## Trinity (3 Oct 2006)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> I really really really REALLY wish they'd come up here and try to protest at a Canadian military funeral.



From Wiki

Canada

On one occasion, Phelps and his congregation had their signs confiscated by customs, and responded by going to the federal capital and burning and spitting on the Canadian flag, and threatening to urinate and defecate on it. Since that time, Canada has passed hate crime legislation, alternatingly referred to by the informal "Fred Phelps Law" and "Jack Chick Law."[citation needed] Phelps has also claimed that his congregation, along with him*, have been arrested in Canada for hate speech*.[36] *Should Phelps ever try to enter Canada again, he would be arrested and tried for violation of hate crime laws*, a fact which prompted the founding of "Godhatescanada.com."[citation needed] He has also strongly opposed the legalization of same-sex marriage in Canada and Canada's Supreme Court.

He won't be coming back any time soon..... 




			
				reccecrewman said:
			
		

> I guess this makes Trinity the child of darkness masqueurading amongst the troops spreading talk of false idols and Gods throughout the ranks of Canada's oppressive war machine.................  ;D



SHHHHH....  stop giving away the secrets.


----------



## Mike Baker (3 Oct 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> He won't be coming back any time soon.....


Good. He makes me sick. If he is an American, and clames that God hates America, does that mean God hates him?  ;D


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (3 Oct 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> Should Phelps ever try to enter Canada again, he would be arrested and tried for violation of hate crime laws
> He won't be coming back any time soon.....



I know I know,  I knew he can't,  but members of his church that Immigration Canada doesn't know about...  I find it baffling that they are not physically harmed.  Now I am not advocating this,  but truth be known, if they came up here and protested at my funeral I know my family would see that this group would swiftly learn the depth of their mistake.  (which is Irish-talk for things that are illegal to even say in Canada) I can't understand why this group isn't considered dangerous.   But in America,  reason plays second fiddle to constitutional law....  ;-)


----------



## Conquistador (4 Oct 2006)

Fred Phelps and his followers plan to protest at the funerals of the Amish school shooting victims.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200610/NAT20061004a.html


----------



## tlg (4 Oct 2006)

What's up with all the crazies? This church group is starting to make me sick to my stomach. The government SHOULD take them out, it would be one less burden for America and its fallen soldiers and everything inbetween.


----------



## wotan (4 Oct 2006)

Why would these folks want to visit such cruelty on these poor parents?  The Amish are such devout folk, they have already forgiven the man that killed their children, because they believe their Christian principles require that of them.

  Cruel, heartless and mean-spirited are the better qualities that this Church displays.  Leave the Amish alone to grieve.


----------



## Trinity (4 Oct 2006)

tlg said:
			
		

> What's up with all the crazies? This church group is starting to make me sick to my stomach. The government SHOULD take them out, it would be one less burden for America and its fallen soldiers and everything inbetween.



Just one crazy...  Fred Phelps.  

All the info you need on him is on wikipedia.


----------



## Trinity (4 Oct 2006)

wotan said:
			
		

> The Amish are such devout folk, they have already forgiven the man that killed their children, because they believe their Christian principles require that of them.



Is this an assumption on your part or have you read this somewhere in the news.  

I have a real beef with people assuming that Christians will naturally forgive because it is a requirement.


The principle of forgiveness is not about the person who did the act, but it is about yourself.
By forgiving, it means you let go of the incident in yourself and stop worrying/going over it in your
head constantly.  It means you let go of the act, not necessarily that you relieve the other person of their responsibility.

If a Christian doesn't forgive someone, it doesn't make them a bad Christian.  It just means they will suffer
with the situation until they do forgive and move on.  I still have 2 or 3 people/situations of which I can not
(or will not) forgive despite my extensive involvement and knowledge of Christianity and its principles, especially
the theory of forgiveness. 

I'm tired so I hope I typed that out in a fashion that makes sense.  Otherwise I'll have to retype it.


----------



## niner domestic (4 Oct 2006)

That made perfect sense.


----------



## Trinity (4 Oct 2006)

niner domestic said:
			
		

> That made perfect sense.



Cool

Wotan... to make it clear before you respond.
*I'm not attacking you. * I'm attacking the principle which
you may have raised on purpose OR not and I just read it
that way.

It's a pet peeve of mine and the more I can teach people other
ideas of forgiveness and Christianity the better.


----------



## wotan (4 Oct 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> Is this an assumption on your part or have you read this somewhere in the news.
> 
> I have a real beef with people assuming that Christians will naturally forgive because it is a requirement.



Hey Trinity,

  I didn't read it, however, it was in an "interview" on CTV.  I put "interview" in quotes as the Amish folks won't allow themselves to be filmed such that their face shows, rather, they were "interviewed" with the back of their head showing as they spoke with the reporter.  Hope that describes the setup fairly accurately.  Anyway, the person being interviewed indicated that they had forgiven the gunman, albeit some members of the community were still struggling to truly forgive.

  I agree with you that forgiveness is about yourself and not other folks.  That said, the person being "interviewed" indicated that forgiveness, in this case, was required of them as Christians.  I don't believe he was speaking on behalf of all Christians, but rather about his Amish community, but that's just my take on it.

  Regarding matters of Christian belief, I'm certainly not an expert as I'm an Agnostic.  But, I try to respect other people's beliefs and there is a part of me that admires someone dedicating their life to the spiritual.  My understanding of the Amish is that they forego modern conveniences in an effort to retain a simpler lifestyle that allows them to stay more "in tune" with a spiritual existence.  I'm probably greatly oversimplying their religion and the philosophy behind it, however I believe that is roughly the gist of it.  

  And no, I didn't take your post as an attack, I saw it as a philosophical point that is important to you, but which is to some degree lost on me as I am not of the Faith.  That said, my comment was based on the televised "interview" and not an interpretation of a Biblical quote such as "Blessed be the merciful, for they shall receive mercy" or some such.  Cheers.


----------



## Trinity (4 Oct 2006)

Cool....

I hear where you are coming from.

That community is going to have some REAL difficulties in the next weeks/months from
this tragedy and trying put wrap their faith and understandings around it.  I doubt
forgiveness will come easy if at all for many of them.


The whole incident doesn't make sense.  The suspect felt he was going to molest again....
so... lets kill people instead before he goes out?

And then Fred Phelps... is going to applaud this action and claim it as a punishment from
God to the Amish?

It's enough to make me question my faith some days!!!


----------



## wotan (4 Oct 2006)

Well, if they have truly forgiven, they are stronger people than I could ever be.  There are probably some in the Amish community that are simply mouthing the words regarding forgiveness and, like you say, will have a hard time coming to terms with all this.

  I can't understand why this fellow or anyone else would attack the Amish.  They are hardworking folk that basically want to be left to practice their religious beliefs in their own way.

  And as for the group of folks from the Westboro Baptist Church, well, even with my limited understanding of religions, I can't say that they are "Christian", although they attempt to mask themselves as such.  A horrid group of hateful, mean people that cause greater pain and suffering to those already bereaved.  Simply abhorrent.


----------



## Yrys (4 Oct 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> The whole incident doesn't make sense.  The suspect felt he was going to molest again....
> so... lets kill people instead before he goes out?



From what his wife said he tell her when inside, and from 
what police said he had with him and waht they thought he would do
(K-Y among others things), it more like:

He wanted to molested again, so he decided to knidnap, molested and kill...


----------



## Slim (4 Oct 2006)

Let us retain site of the facts here.

This has nothing to do with God.

This has to do with someone who was messed up, who messed others up and was preparing to do so again. He couldn't take it so he blames God, then shoots 5 or 6 girls (because its their fault too, right)

This individual is sick and, whether given medical assistance or not, should have been locked away from the rest of us so that he can't ever do that again. Unfortunately all the criminally insane people look (on the surface at least) just like everyone else...

And Neither God, nor the Great Pumkin, or any other deity had any responsibility in the matter. Nor did they climb into his head and make him do it.

Fred Phelps, in my humble and uninformed opinion, is just a leech that needs to be stepped on from a great height.

End of rant.


----------



## Cadarn (4 Oct 2006)

Fox News has reported that Westboro Baptist has cancelled the planned protests at the Amish funerals.



> Shirley Phelps-Roper, the daughter of church's pastor, told FOXNews.com the group canceled the protests in exchange for an hour of radio time Thursday on syndicated talk-show host Mike Gallagher's radio program.



Thankfully they wont be bothering the poor families of those girls, unfortunately they are just going to spew their hatred somewhere else.


----------



## Shadowolf (5 Oct 2006)

The freedom of speech was given so that people have the right to criticize the duly elected government without fear of repercussion.  It is unfortunate that pers such as Fred Phelps use this right in such a wrong way.  From what I have read, he is not anti-amish(indeed, I dont believe the amish believe in homosexuality) but thinks that everything wrong in the world is because governments are 'fag enablers'(his words, not mine).  I believe a (mis?)quote from a colorful Army.ca member is applicable in this case - 'The herd needs culling'


----------



## Trinity (5 Oct 2006)

Cadarn said:
			
		

> Fox News has reported that Westboro Baptist has cancelled the planned protests at the Amish funerals.
> 
> Thankfully they wont be bothering the poor families of those girls, unfortunately they are just going to spew their hatred somewhere else.



Anyone catch the clip of them last time on the TV???

The reporter had to interupt the speaker from the church to shut her up.
Finally the reporter said things like "what does the quack have to say" and
other type insults.  It degenerated within minutes.  

I can't wait to watch this "hour" of TV.. my bets it won't go 20 minutes.


----------



## Trinity (8 Oct 2006)

davidhmd said:
			
		

> Maybe someone should pose this question to him. It's quite the conundrum. Maybe he would have a star trek moment and *POOF* would explode. Problem solved.



Sadly no.

His theology is along the lines of being the only person that God talks to.
He is a prophet and anyone who disagrees with his beliefs/interpretation of
the bible is wrong, a sinner and will go to hell.

So... I doubt he considers himself American but more of a prophet of God and
only responsible to God himself... not the government or any laws that stand
in the way of his agenda.


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Oct 2006)

His interpretation of the Bible is very different from mine.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (8 Oct 2006)

I suspect that this group has a very different interpretation  than most people. ... but if you really look at it every religion has its own version of antinomianism.  I know a few NDPers who have said equally hurtful things to me (I'm trying to be gracefull,  but the Irish in me is starting to boil) ... and I know 'of' Muslims who also feel they can behave like this. I wish percussive therapy would help,  but it would just reaffirm their beliefs.


----------



## dglad (8 Oct 2006)

There's absolutely no point trying to make sense of nonsense.


----------



## Trinity (8 Oct 2006)

dglad said:
			
		

> There's absolutely no point trying to make sense of nonsense.



That's why I stopped reading the bible years ago.  ;D

jk...


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (9 Oct 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> That's why I stopped reading the bible years ago.  ;D
> 
> jk...


I  *KNEW IT*  I thought you were just making it up as you went along!  Next time I'll check what you're quoting ;-)


----------



## Trinity (9 Oct 2006)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> I  *KNEW IT*  I thought you were just making it up as you went along!  Next time I'll check what you're quoting ;-)



For fun somedays I will make up quotes that are ridiculous and see if people believe me. Most do
at which point I stop and let them know I'm pulling their leg.   :


----------



## Thompson_JM (9 Oct 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> For fun somedays I will make up quotes that are ridiculous and see if people believe me. Most do
> at which point I stop and let them know I'm pulling their leg.   :



Now thats a service i'll sit in on....


----------



## career_radio-checker (9 Oct 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> For fun somedays I will make up quotes that are ridiculous and see if people believe me. Most do
> at which point I stop and let them know I'm pulling their leg.   :



*droned in a preacher's voice* And in Genisis 6:13 The lord said to Noah, "build me a *P*ark and fill it with a pair of every animal..."


----------



## GAP (1 Nov 2007)

Church ordered to pay $10.9 million for funeral protest
Article Link

Church members picket the funerals of troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan

Church claims God is punishing the U.S. because of its tolerance for gays

Marine's father: "I couldn't let them get away with doing this to our military"

Church leaders say judgment will do nothing to stop their protests
     
(CNN) -- A federal jury in Baltimore, Maryland, Wednesday awarded $10.9 million to a father of a Marine whose funeral was picketed by members of a fundamentalist church carrying signs blaming soldiers' deaths on America's tolerance of homosexuals.

The family of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder -- who was killed in a vehicle accident in Iraq's Anbar province in 2006 -- sued the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, and its leaders for defamation, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Church members showed up at Snyder's funeral chanting derogatory slogans and holding picket signs with messages including "God Hates Fags."

They've picketed the funerals of dozens of troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, claiming that God is punishing the United States because of its tolerance for homosexuality.

Al Snyder, father of the slain Marine, said he considered filing the lawsuit for a long time before going forward and that he hoped the judgment would make it harder for the church to continue such protests. 

"It's hard enough burying a 20-year-old son, much less having to deal with something like this," he said, recalling that some of the other signs at the funeral included "Thank God for dead soldiers" and "Thank God for IEDs."  Watch the fallen Marine's father describe his reaction »

"As far as their picketing goes, they want to do it in front of a courthouse, they want to do it in a public park, I could care less. But I couldn't let them get away with doing this to our military," Al Snyder said.

Text of the complaint 

"Every day in court I would just think of Matt and have him on my mind and know that he was watching out for me."

Snyder's attorney told jurors to pick an amount "that says don't do this in Maryland again. Do not bring your circus of hate to Maryland again," according to The Associated Press.

The award includes $2.9 million in compensatory damages and $8 million in punitive damages, a clerk in the judge's chambers said.

Lawyers for the church members argued Matthew Snyder's funeral was public and the First Amendment protects all points of view, even offensive ones, the AP reported.
More on link


----------



## geo (1 Nov 2007)

Of all the lousy things to do..... 
Picket the funeral service of LCpl Snyder?  
Blaming the war's results on FAGS?  
... associate the two together and you are saying that LCpl Snyder is somehow associated to GAYS... or gay himself!

Well, the church shouldn't have encouraged & organised that little demonstration - there are 364 other days in the year for them to do their little old song and dance....

Make em hurt big time!

PS - The above mentioned rant is against the church who has made a public circus out of something really private - shame on them!


----------



## vonGarvin (1 Nov 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Blaming the war's results on FAGS?


I know that the tobacco industry is powerful, but how are cigarettes to blame?


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Nov 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Of all the lousy things to do.....
> Picket the funeral service of LCpl Snyder?
> Blaming the war's results on FAGS?



I CERTAINLY can't speak for these fruit loops, but I thought it's more like, "as long as our nation tolerates homosexuality, then the deaths of our young men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan is punishment from God."

So, if everyone becomes a homophobe, the death of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan will stop, is that it? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight - time to recalibrate the foil hats, folks.


----------



## COBRA-6 (1 Nov 2007)

I doubt these wackos have any assests to seize, all they want is publicity and they got it. At least the jury made the right decision!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (1 Nov 2007)

If you search "Westboro" on this site, you will get several threads about their antics. [ which I will get around to merging eventually]


----------



## tomahawk6 (1 Nov 2007)

They will protest any military burial as a result the Patriot Riders are usually in attendance.

http://www.patriotguard.org/

Patriot Guard Riders Mission Statement

The Patriot Guard Riders is a diverse amalgamation of riders from across the nation. We have one thing in common besides motorcycles. We have an unwavering respect for those who risk their very lives for America’s freedom and security. If you share this respect, please join us.

We don’t care what you ride or if you ride, what your political views are, or whether you’re a hawk or a dove. It is not a requirement that you be a veteran. It doesn't matter where you’re from or what your income is; you don’t even have to ride. The only prerequisite is Respect.

Our main mission is to attend the funeral services of fallen American heroes as invited guests of the family. Each mission we undertake has two basic objectives.

1. Show our sincere respect for our fallen heroes, their families, and their communities.

2. Shield the mourning family and their friends from interruptions created by any protestor or group of protestors.

We accomplish the latter through strictly legal and non-violent means.

To those of you who are currently serving and fighting for the freedoms of others, at home and abroad, please know that we are backing you.  We honor and support you with every mission we carry out, and we are praying for a safe return home for all.


----------



## Michael OLeary (25 Jul 2010)

> Clever Counterprotest of the Day: San Diego Comic-Con patrons take on the hateful Westboro Baptist Church, who are in town to harangue attendees for false idol worship (seriously).



More photos at:

http://www.comicsalliance.com/2010/07/22/super-heroes-vs-the-westboro-baptist-church/



> They've faced down humans time and time again, but Fred Phelps and his minions from the Westboro Baptist Church were not ready for the cosplay action that awaited them today at Comic-Con. After all, who can win against a counter protest that includes robots, magical anime girls, Trekkies, Jedi and...kittens?



http://ryanhaylett.com/comic-con-hates-the-westboro-baptist-church



> Also according to Twitter, the hate group didn’t look too happy.


----------



## owa (25 Jul 2010)

It's too bad religious groups have to deal with these types of nimrods.  There's always a few idiots.  I may be atheist, but I support organized religion, and it's too bad there are idiots like this, haha.

But it does make me happy to know that their level of support is so low in the larger population.  I think that's a good sign for humanity


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 Jul 2010)

That's good to see.  Regardless of the stripe I love to see these hateful  bastards get a taste of their own medicine.  Love seeing Bender there.


----------



## Franko (25 Jul 2010)

All hail the hypno-toad!






Regards


----------



## northernboy_24 (25 Jul 2010)

Creative peaceful counter-protests.  This is what the law of peaceful assembly is all about.  Good on the nerds.  I just wish I was there to see the faces of the westboro baptists.   I am thinking that would have been an amusing time.


----------



## Jorkapp (25 Jul 2010)




----------



## Nemecek (25 Jul 2010)

ahaha.

Thanks for sharing! Good to know my fellow nerds are just as clever and creative as anyone who speaks fluent Klingon should be. I really enjoyed the constant references to the Hypno-Toad. Definitely one of the best cameo characters in Futurama!


----------



## armyvern (25 Jul 2010)

You know, as an athiest, who is descended from the forefathers who founded the Baptist Church in England and then in North America ... (can you say "burned at the stake" twice: IE: "I take it back" .... "uhmmmm no, I don't! Get me up there again"  :-\ ) ...

I say awesome job by the comic book geekies ...

Hoping that I'm not related to any of these Westboro ID 10 Ts.


----------



## HavokFour (29 Aug 2010)

*Man fires pepper spray on protesters outside Marine's funeral*​


> (CNN) -- A motorist fired pepper spray Saturday at a group of demonstrators and counter-protesters outside a funeral for a U.S. Marine in Omaha, Nebraska, police said.
> 
> The incident occurred shortly before 10 a.m. (11 a.m. ET) as members of a small Kansas church that protests at military funerals and counter-protesters stood nearly a block away from First United Methodist Church during services for Staff Sgt. Michael Bock, 26, who died August 13 in Afghanistan's Helmand province.
> 
> ...



Read more...

This guy is my new hero. It's unfortunate some Patriot Guard Riders go caught in the cross fire though.



_edit to show the true content of the thread_


----------



## PMedMoe (29 Aug 2010)

> Shirley Phelps-Roper, a member of Westboro Baptist Church, said Omaha police did not adequately control roughly 30 counter-protesters, who she said jostled with church members.



 :crybaby:    If you idiots weren't there, the "counter-protesters" wouldn't be either.



> "Of course it was directed at us," Phelps-Roper, who is Fred Phelps' daughter, said of the pepper spray.



Well, give this girl a cookie for being able to figure out the obvious.    :


----------



## SeanNewman (29 Aug 2010)

The title of this thread is condoning (rewarding in fact) violence on innocent people.

While there is a small part of my heart that of course smiles at the thought of these people getting punished for doing something that seems so heartless, that doesn't over-rule the fact that people are allowed to demonstrate/protest without being assaulted.

I've been exposed to pepper spray as staff on the Crowd Confrontation Ops Instructor course and it certainly isn't pleasant; certainly not a stretch to call it assault if you do it to someone else.

People might have no tact, people might be heartless, and deep down you might feel like they deserve to get a face full of pepper spray, but it can not be allowed to actually happen without consequences.  

What would happen if soldiers and families were demonstrating on a Wear Red Friday and some left wing person entirely against spending money on the military drove by and pepper sprayed the crowd because he didn't like what the crowd was saying?


----------



## 57Chevy (29 Aug 2010)

He could just as easily started his own little sideline protest with his kid.
Keep the pepper spray for some real problems, and all would have 
probably turned out just peachy and within the law.
I wonder what the outcome would have been then.

Imagine. The counter-protesters standing nearly a block away......
they might as well have been in another town.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Aug 2010)

Right or wrong, I'm sure there will be plenty that contribute to his defence and any subsequent monetary fine he may garner.


----------



## Sapplicant (29 Aug 2010)

These are the same people who were supposed to come protest at the funeral of the Greyhound Bus decapitee (made up word) on account of Canada being a nation a godless fags, n'est pas? I definitely defend peoples' free speech, but not when your intent to cause harm to others, whether it be psychological or physical. But, I guess this is a case of "ask, and ye shall receive", and they were definitely asking for it. They've been asking for it for nearly a decade.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (29 Aug 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> The title of this thread is condoning (rewarding in fact) violence on innocent people.
> 
> While there is a small part of my heart that of course smiles at the thought of these people getting punished for doing something that seems so heartless, that doesn't over-rule the fact that people are allowed to demonstrate/protest without being assaulted.



I agree with you completely, and thanks for saying it.


----------



## Sapplicant (29 Aug 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> .... people are allowed to demonstrate/protest without being assaulted.




That they are, but protesting war is one thing. When you start bringing signs like these, however....

http://cache.boston.com/resize/bonzai-fba/Globe_Photo/2007/10/30/1193783571_6404/300h.jpg
http://www.bleedingcool.com/wp-content/uploads//2010/07/westboro.jpg
http://slog.thestranger.com/files/2007/10/Westerboro_Baptist_Church.jpg

You are NOT protesting. You are being an arsehole of the highest order, and deliberately trying to hurt people. Kind of like the Toronto G8 summit. There was peaceful protesting, with meaningful messages, and then there was the "Black Bloc".


What the heck, one more for good measure...

http://musingsfromthemoon.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/assholes1.jpg 


Someone's quote pretty much said it all. Some people are alive simply because it's illegal to shoot them. I agree with the OP. Decorate this man. These people promote hate, and nothing more. If there truly is a hell, these people won't have to wait in line. They've earned themselves the VIP treatment.


----------



## Nostix (29 Aug 2010)

In quite the opposite sentiment to this topic, I actually cringe every time I see someone physically react to the WBC.

It should be well known by now that their protests are (at least in part) financially motivated. Their entire 'church' is funded by civil lawsuits stemming from physical assaults or civil rights violations. There is a reason that there are a disproportionate amount of lawyers in the family. 

They have perfected real life trolling. Reacting to their nonsense just reinforces what they're doing, and gives them a financial incentive to escalate it.


----------



## PuckChaser (29 Aug 2010)

Get a bunch of friends, make a giant screen, and surround their protests with said screen. Can still hear them, but nobody would have to look at their smug faces.


----------



## 4Feathers (29 Aug 2010)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I agree with you completely, and thanks for saying it.



I disagree completely. In the country I serve (Canada) this is not peacefull protesting, but would be considered hate mongering, which is illegal here. These protesters are nothing more that racist extremists, and do not reflect the values we cherish here. That being said, I would hope the lawfull authorities would deal with it, not the general public.


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Aug 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> People might have no tact, people might be heartless, and deep down you might feel like they deserve to get a face full of pepper spray, but it can not be allowed to actually happen without consequences.



If you're gonna be dumb you better be tough.

In something like this the consequences are well worth it if you ask me.

Law 3 of the universe. You act like a big enough asshole and sooner or later someone's gonna hurt you.


----------



## Franko (29 Aug 2010)

4Feathers said:
			
		

> I disagree completely. In the country I serve (Canada) this is not peacefull protesting, but would be considered hate mongering, which is illegal here. These protesters are nothing more that racist extremists, and do not reflect the values we cherish here. That being said, I would hope the lawfull authorities would deal with it, not the general public.



You may want to check out *PPCLI *Guy's profile. (I just hinted a wee bit for ya, seeing as you missed it before)

Regards


----------



## Rogo (29 Aug 2010)

I agree with Petamocto, we all hate what the protesting crowds are doing but they are entitled to do it and should not be physically disrupted when they themselves aren't being physically threatening.  On top of all that, this will only add fuel to their fire to continue to protest and if they need to be dispersed the police can do so. Otherwise it becomes vigilante justice.  :2c:


----------



## vonGarvin (29 Aug 2010)

4Feathers said:
			
		

> I disagree completely. In the country I serve (Canada) this is not peacefull protesting, but would be considered hate mongering, which is illegal here. These protesters are nothing more that racist extremists, and do not reflect the values we cherish here. That being said, I would hope the lawfull authorities would deal with it, not the general public.


These are two issues.  But first of all, they aren't racist (from what I can tell): they are just whack jobs.  So, the dude with the pepper spray, yeah, I have some Schadenfreude over them getting a faceful; however, just as their messages sicken me, so too does the idea that any person can just take the law into their own hands as judge, jury and executioner.  We aren't savages.


----------



## jollyjacktar (29 Aug 2010)

Can't say I'll shed tears for their pepper induced tears.  That being said, I think they were better dealt with at the recent Comics Convention counter protest.  Some peaceful humiliation and scorn can go a long ways.  They too have a soft underbelly somewhere that can be found and used against them, even if it is to ignore them, give them no press time and hope they will dry up and blow away with the other trash.  I suppose they can count their blessings it was OCS and not a MAC 10 they were sprayed with.  American Taliban is all they are IMO in attitude anyhow.  I despise all fundamentalists like this regardless of stripe or creed.


----------



## SeanNewman (29 Aug 2010)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I agree with you completely, and thanks for saying it.



It's the new and improved me, thanks to the help of many patient moderators who have given some good advice.
 :cheers:


----------



## 4Feathers (29 Aug 2010)

Der Panzerkommandant.... said:
			
		

> You may want to check out *PPCLI *Guy's profile. (I just hinted a wee bit for ya, seeing as you missed it before)
> 
> Regards




I did, don't get what your point is though. 
Regards


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Aug 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> It's the new and improved me, thanks to the help of many patient moderators who have given some good advice.
> :cheers:


I can't believe you let them break you.


----------



## GK .Dundas (30 Aug 2010)

These People are a family of Lawyers who make their living by provoking people to Assault them and them suing the the person and sometimes the Authorities for damages.You can bet either the guy with the pepper spray or the local cops  or both will be served..In spite of their threats to picket our"ungodly " country they have to the best of my knowledge *never* shown up .Seems Our court system at least the civil system has a low tolerance for idiots.


----------



## medaid (30 Aug 2010)

They don't show up because CBSA does a good job. Kudos are to be had for them.


----------



## EpicBeardedMan (30 Aug 2010)

Those people are crazy, here's a clip from Fox News. They're very messed up, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc5FIMpHbgU.


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Aug 2010)

I understand the assailant's frustrations, but as a number have stated, I don't agree with the actions he took.  No matter how you look at it, that's assault, and that's illegal.  

If they ever came to Canada, you could raise a case with the Federal or respective Human Rights Commission and actual stand a good chance at a Chapter 13 conviction and recover some of the money they raise through their lawsuits down south.

Regards 
G2G


----------



## Franko (30 Aug 2010)

4Feathers said:
			
		

> I did, don't get what your point is though.
> Regards



 :

He's a long time serving member of the Princess Patricia's *Canadian* Light Infantry (PPCLI) and you replied to his thread as if he was from some other country.

Regards


----------



## SeanNewman (30 Aug 2010)

Apollo Diomedes said:
			
		

> I can't believe you let them break you.



It was either that or keep going and have all of you deprived of me for the rest of your lives.


----------



## 57Chevy (30 Aug 2010)

And we wouldn't want that now.......would we  ;D


----------



## 4Feathers (30 Aug 2010)

Der Panzerkommandant.... said:
			
		

> :
> 
> He's a long time serving member of the Princess Patricia's *Canadian* Light Infantry (PPCLI) and you replied to his thread as if he was from some other country.
> 
> Regards



I can see that, I guess my words were misunderstood. My point was we have laws in Canada to prevent the proliferation of hatred through such methods of public behavior. I am well aware of what the PPCLI is, and there are many long serving members of all trades on this forum.


----------



## Rogo (30 Aug 2010)

EpicBeardedMan said:
			
		

> Those people are crazy, here's a clip from Fox News. They're very messed up, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc5FIMpHbgU.



That was an intense argument.   I feel she would of gotten a reaction from any news agency but just the fact that it was FOX that had her on that is a guaranteed explosion waiting to happen.


----------



## Sapplicant (30 Aug 2010)

If they want to preach the word of the lord so badly, perhaps the US gov't could round them all up, then send them to the A'Stan with the sole task of converting as many people as possible into peaceful, wine drinking, God-fearing Christians.   ;D


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Aug 2010)

Petamocto, their probably picking on you because you used to be a reservist  

Honestly I'm surprised no one has shot these nutbars yet.


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Aug 2010)

Apollo Diomedes said:
			
		

> Honestly I'm surprised no one has shot these nutbars yet.


If dude with the pepper spray had a gun, I wonder if he would have applied lethal doses of lead.  THAT would have been tragic.  (No, I'm not being sarcastic: it's still against the law to shoot people for being dumb).


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Aug 2010)

In the states you can go to jail for threatening the president but these idiots get away with tormenting and traumatising greiving families which I'm sure effects them not only emotionally but physically too.
I know everyone is taking the higher road here with their right to protest, freedom of speech, don't like what their saying but defend it etc... 
I guess I'm just a bad person for hoping someone shuts them up one way or another.


----------



## Jorkapp (30 Aug 2010)

Apollo Diomedes said:
			
		

> Petamocto, their probably picking on you because you used to be a reservist
> 
> Honestly I'm surprised no one has shot these nutbars yet.



Shooting them would just make martyrs of them, which is probably something they want. 

Besides, counter-protesting is more fun.


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Aug 2010)

Apollo Diomedes said:
			
		

> In the states you can go to jail for threatening the president but these idiots get away with tormenting and traumatising greiving families which I'm sure effects them not only emotionally but physically too.
> I know everyone is taking the higher road here with their right to protest, freedom of speech, don't like what their saying but defend it etc...
> *I guess I'm just a bad person for hoping someone shuts them up one way or another.*


I don't think you're a bad person for hoping that.  But I think you're confusing the issue as some have perhaps laid out.  In one case, a man fired pepper spray on people.  That's against the law, because his life wasn't in grave danger, etc.  That's one issue.
The other is these people and their messages.  I hear you, "I'll defend their right to protest with my life" and all that crap, but I agree that with you that something must be done about them.  But, no matter what, it must be done within the scope of the law.  I suggest that their messages go beyond the limits of free speech.  If we just blast them with whatever for their vile message: in the end, it's just a message.  We sent Ernst Zundel to jail for his message, perhaps there are hate-speech laws in the states that are similar to those?  I mean, Ernst wasn't suggesting that we go kill people, he was just a nazi whack job.  But he did target an identifiable group.  (or more than one).  Perhaps an argument could be made that given that they post messages that offer support to enemies of the US in time of war, then they are de facto supporting the enemy with said messages?  They are conducting a Psy Op against the military of the US, and given that they are US citizens, they could be arrested for some charge along that line?  Maybe that would be the route to go.  But I know it's a really huge stretch to think that laws would be enforced to do so, but in the end, to re-iterate: I don't think that you're bad person for hoping that these people get shut up. But pepper spray won't do it.  The law is powerful, and if OJ can walk from double-murder, then some slick lawyer should be able to shut these guys up for good.


----------



## 57Chevy (30 Aug 2010)

EpicBeardedMan said:
			
		

> Those people are crazy, here's a clip from Fox News. They're very messed up, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc5FIMpHbgU.



Sounds like a cat fight.


----------



## EpicBeardedMan (8 Sep 2010)

The phelps family just love the attention. There was a clip on youtube I just tried to find but forgot what the title was, a guy who is an actual baptist just strolls up to them on the sidewalk and actually wants to know what the westboro baptist church believes and its values and asks about the signs they hold and why one sign says "Your child will kill you". It's hilarious because the woman holding the sign just makes up nonsense, she doesn't even know what to actually say.


----------



## Sapplicant (8 Sep 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Perhaps an argument could be made that given that they post messages that offer support to enemies of the US in time of war, then they are de facto supporting the enemy with said messages?  They are conducting a Psy Op against the military of the US, and given that they are US citizens, they could be arrested for some charge along that line?  Maybe that would be the route to go.  But I know it's a really huge stretch to think that laws would be enforced to do so....




Kinda like, maybe, just *maybe*, some form or another of *treason*?


----------



## Kalatzi (20 Apr 2011)

link here 
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread691898/pg1


Perfect way to deal with these folks  >


----------



## xo31@711ret (20 Apr 2011)

++1; well done


----------



## Northalbertan (20 Apr 2011)

What a fantastic way to handle these............people.  Good job!! :rofl:


----------



## Neill McKay (20 Apr 2011)

Of course I condemn anyone who would protest at a funeral, but I hardly think having the police knowingly detain people who haven't done anything illegal is an appropriate way to deal with it.  As satisfying as it is, it's a disturbing way for them to act.


----------



## Sigil (20 Apr 2011)

Awesome job. I'd shake the hand of every person who took part in stopping the hateful WBC from spewing their filth.


----------



## Petard (20 Apr 2011)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> Of course I condemn anyone who would protest at a funeral, but I hardly think having the police knowingly detain people who haven't done anything illegal is an appropriate way to deal with it....



So what do you suggest is an appropriate way to deal with their disrespectful, and often confrontational, protests?


----------



## VinceW (21 Apr 2011)

Even though some things that happened goes against their right to free speach it's good to see the good guys win one against these vile turds.


----------



## AJFitzpatrick (21 Apr 2011)

A win that is until the police department gets sued for unlawful detainment and loses.


----------



## Sigil (21 Apr 2011)

AJFitzpatrick said:
			
		

> A win that is until the police department gets sued for unlawful detainment and loses.



There isn't a jury in MS who would convict that police department. I doubt there's a DA who would even bring charges. That department is filled with heroes.


----------



## jwtg (21 Apr 2011)

My initial reaction is satisfaction.  I'm glad the funeral wasn't disrespectfully disrupted, and I'm glad the locals had the stones to step up and do something about it.  I'm not an advocate of vigilante justice (although this is hardly the equivalent of Batman...) but my gut says what they did was right.

Today, I'm going to be utilitarian and say that the right thing was done.


----------



## my72jeep (21 Apr 2011)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> Of course I condemn anyone who would protest at a funeral, but I hardly think having the police knowingly detain people who haven't done anything illegal is an appropriate way to deal with it.  As satisfying as it is, it's a disturbing way for them to act.


They did not detain any one they took their time questioning witnesses.


----------



## jollyjacktar (21 Apr 2011)

Neil, usually you are pretty spot on.  Today however, you are RTFO.  These dirtbags go around just gagging for a fight so they can sue anybody and everybody.  They are human parasites and it is amazing that in the US they have not been put under by someone with a gun to make a statement against them.  This way they did not get hurt and the funeral was conducted as it should be.  Being a former peace officer I can attest that some investigations run longer than others as circumstance dictate.  Perhaps this was one of those times.....


----------



## Neill McKay (21 Apr 2011)

my72jeep said:
			
		

> They did not detain any one they took their time questioning witnesses.



This is the bit I was referring to:

"A few made it to the funeral but were ushered away to be questioned about a crime they might have possibly been involved in. Turns out, after a few hours of questioning, that they were not involved and they were allowed to go on about their business."

As I read that, the police did not have any honest belief that those concerned were guilty of a crime.  It's possible that I've misinterpreted but based on the context I don't think that's the case.



			
				Petard said:
			
		

> So what do you suggest is an appropriate way to deal with their disrespectful, and often confrontational, protests?



If they break the law, then legal remedies should be used.  If they enter any kind of private property (including a churchyard) and behave badly they should be ejected (by the police if that's what it takes).

I don't know the whole background of these people, and again I'm glad that the funeral proceeded without disruption, but it's wrong for public officials -- especially the police -- to exceed the limits of their authority in this way.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Apr 2011)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> *I don't know the whole background of these people,* and again I'm glad that the funeral proceeded without disruption, but it's wrong for public officials -- especially the police -- to exceed the limits of their authority in this way.



Then I suggest before you start making judgements and spouting off about who's rights are being violated, you delve deeply into what a bunch of disgusting, litigious assholes the WBC really are. Police are there 'To Serve and Protect" and I believe they did just fine in that aspect.


----------



## Redeye (21 Apr 2011)

That's a pretty sharp way to deal with those morons.

I actually liked the response of another town.  They showed up and it turned out that their van got its tires slashed.  Unfortunately for them, there were no witnesses and police couldn't find any evidence of note.  More unfortunately, the only garage in town closed for the day when they showed up, and they were forced to get a very expensive tow.


----------



## jwtg (21 Apr 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> That's a pretty sharp way to deal with those morons.
> 
> I actually liked the response of another town.  They showed up and it turned out that their van got its tires slashed.  Unfortunately for them, there were no witnesses and police couldn't find any evidence of note.  More unfortunately, the only garage in town closed for the day when they showed up, and they were forced to get a very expensive tow.



Again, I find my first reaction is pleasant.  I wonder now where I sit in regards to my moral compass.  It is dishonest to do things like are being mentioned here, but it seems like these are the necessary steps in order to prevent these idiots from causing trouble.

If my loved ones/close friends come home in a casket and WBC show up to protest, I think I would rather the police/community find a clever way to prevent disaster, rather than WAIT for trouble at the funeral and then dealing with it.


----------



## Privateer (21 Apr 2011)

Mr. McKay has my support on this one.  While we may all find the WBC disgusting, and I do, this isn't a satisfactory reason for our public officials to disregard their responsibilities, which is what was _implied_ as the reason for detaining these people.  

I am troubled by the suggestion that a prosecutor would "look the other way" for any class of citizens, police or otherwise, in exercising his or her discretion as to whether to proceed with charges, on the basis that he or she favours that particular class.  I am also troubled by the _suggestion_,  as I read it, that it would be a good thing for a jury to decide issues based not on the law, but on whether they are biased for or against a particular group of people.  (Of course, juries are made up of people, not robots, and everyone has their biases.  My concern is that we would support decisions made on the basis of biases as opposed to the law.)


Edited to fix italics.


----------



## bwatch (21 Apr 2011)

Just blow them away with a high power fire hose. Most of them could use a good shower anyway.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Apr 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Then I suggest before you start making judgements and spouting off about who's rights are being violated, you delve deeply into what a bunch of disgusting, litigious assholes the WBC really are. Police are there 'To Serve and Protect" and I believe they did just fine in that aspect.




I agree the WBC are _"a bunch of disgusting, litigious assholes,"_ that being stipulated N. McKay is quite right and the local police, you and all others who support them are wrong. Everyone, even the _"disgusting, litigious assholes"_ in the WBC are entitled to fair and equal treatment at and under the law, and LEOs have a *duty* to ensure their rights are fairly, equally and equitably applied. LEOs, like the ones in this incident, who violate the rights of citizens unworthy of the trust resposed in them. Who else might those LEOs not like? me? You?

Give your head a shake, please. Rights are rights, duties are duties. The LEOs failed in their duty; they, too, are assholes.


----------



## GAP (21 Apr 2011)

It is these very rights that have allowed this group to do what they do. The community has the "right" to protect itself from this group flaunting a view that is going to hurt (emotionally) members of their community.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Apr 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> It is these very rights that have allowed this group to do what they do. The community has the "right" to protect itself from this group flaunting a view that is going to hurt (emotionally) members of their community.




The "community" took some action, about which I have no opinion. But the armed servants of the state are, as they must be, held to a different, higher standard - and they failed.


----------



## mariomike (21 Apr 2011)

bwatch said:
			
		

> Just blow them away with a high power fire hose. Most of them could use a good shower anyway.



I read that suggestion a few years ago. I don't think they use fire hoses for that purpose anymore. "We don't train fire hoses on people in San Francisco." SFFD.  
I have seen video of foam and water cannons used in Europe:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=644_1172713530

edit


----------



## jwtg (21 Apr 2011)

Is a preemptive strike always immoral?

Reasonable certainty of hostility allows for reasonable preemptive action on the behalf of the perceived target of said hostility, according to many ethicists.  You and I know ethics are hardly black and white.

I agree that what the LEOs did was dishonest, but it may have also been the only reasonable thing they could have done to maintain the peace when they had reason to believe (based on precedent) that things could otherwise get ugly, without their intervention.

Hands down it was dishonest.  Was it necessary and justified? I'm undecided, despite my sentimentalism.  For now I will entertain the idea that is akin to preemptive strike (that resulted in nothing other than lost time/missed opportunity to ruin a fallen soldier's funeral) and I'm not sure whether or not I consider it ethical.  Kant would say it was not ethical.  I wonder, would utilitarian ethics (including the author of your quoted personal text, E. R. Campbell) justify this action?  The most good was done to the most people for the longest time, with the least damage occuring to anyone.  Is that not the principle of utility?  Food for thought.

EDIT: To be fair, I'm not saying John Stuart Mill would have condoned this behavior.  As a proponent of utilitarian ethics, I refer to him as a loose representative of a group (mainly consequentialist ethicists) that might be more sympathetic to doing what is necessary.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Apr 2011)

My comments in yellow



			
				jwtg said:
			
		

> Is a preemptive strike always immoral?
> No, there is a case for legitimate self defence. That case could be made for the family and _some_ friends of the family.
> 
> Reasonable certainty of hostility allows for reasonable preemptive action on the behalf of the perceived target of said hostility, according to many ethicists.  You and I know ethics are hardly black and white.
> ...


----------



## Container (21 Apr 2011)

Some of these places have pretty militant populations. Perhaps the police attempted to inform of the WBC of the danger they faced and it fell on deaf ears. The only option to avoid what would most certainly end in a gigantic incident was to keep the protestors busy.

Of course I think its completely unacceptable. 

But they work with lesser grounds than we do in Canada- if they had an incident happen and they suspected the "out of towners" they may actually have had the authority to round them up and interview them prior to clearing them. 

In this particular state a few years ago if you were Canadian and ran a stop sign you could expect to spend up to three days in jail until it was determined you weren't a flight risk or you would pay your ticket because you were from another country.

I subscribe to the idea that the law never exists just for the sake of authority- if its riding the line of being an abuse it shouldnt be done. If it seems like a "clever" legal solution or creative use of your "powers" it will usually make you look like an *******. And the courts will usually agree with me.

If the state or the community was serious about it they would create similar bylaws and laws that limit access to funerals by all outside parties. creating a mourning buffer. You can be a douche- but do it over there.  My cousins are Marines- I would lose my mind if these folks showed up to their funeral- but I wouldnt do it as a cop.


----------



## gcclarke (21 Apr 2011)

I'm with Messieurs McKay and Cambell. The rule of law must be paramout. It is not illegal to be a complete jerk at (or near) a funeral. It is illegal to detain people without cause simply to prevent people from being a complete jerk at a funeral. Especially when said illegal act is done by the police. You know, those people who are supposed to be upholding the law?

*Engaging in peaceful protest is one of the most important freedoms that we in western societies have.* The fact that the cause that these people are protesting for / against is something that we find distasteful does not excuse members of the policy department from taking these actions to prevent them from the lawful expression of their freedom of speech.


----------



## jwtg (21 Apr 2011)

My comments in red



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> My comments in yellow
> 
> "Is a preemptive strike always immoral?
> No, there is a case for legitimate self defence. That case could be made for the family and some friends of the family.
> ...



Also, in Northern Ireland  every year the PSNI (Police Service of Northern Ireland) prevents protesters (Orange) from protesting in the area of Garvaghy Road.  They deny them their lawful right in the interest of preventing incidents like the troubles that Northern Ireland has known there for years.  I suppose this is also unethical?

 DISCLAIMER:  Please bear in mind my knowledge of the situation in Northern Ireland comes from speaking to an Irishman who drove me down Garvaghy Road, where I saw painted curbs and tricolor flags everywhere proclaiming their Irish pride in the midst of a protestant-dominated area.  A truly enlightening cultural experience, however my knowledge is not from a textbook or research- it is from the word of mouth of an Irishman who explained it to me as we stood there and is thus subject to error due to human bias and interpretation.  Correct me if my facts are incorrect- I welcome it willingly.


----------



## Container (21 Apr 2011)

There are laws and rules in Ireland that cover off those instances.

Also UC operations by police are not even remotely similar to what is alleged here. Firstly, UC operators dont do their ops from a uniform that conveys authority and suggests that people are required to listen to their directions.

Secondly the actions of the operators, and any deception is tracked that they will answer in court as to whether its justified or not. Thirdly if they exceeded their authorities or acceptabel behaviors they will be liable. Deception is used in interviews as well but as soon as it shocks the conscience of the court it is unacceptable. Arresting people on no real grounds and keeping hold of the innocent citizen would most certainly shock the court.

Apples to oranges.


----------



## jwtg (21 Apr 2011)

My comments in yellow


			
				Container said:
			
		

> There are laws and rules in Ireland that cover off those instances. Thank you for the clarification.  If you know this for a fact, could you direct us to a source?  What those laws are, what they entail?  Otherwise this remains hearsay.
> 
> Also UC operations by police are not even remotely similar to what is alleged here. Firstly, UC operators dont do their ops from a uniform that conveys authority and suggests that people are required to listen to their directions.
> 
> ...



From a consequentialist point of view, it is hard to view their actions as immoral.  From a Kantian/imperative point of view, it is hard to view their actions as moral.  From a legal point of view, does anybody know what Mississipi law states regarding holding people for questioning?  Can people be held and questioned and released without charges being pressed?  Certainly, this situation was more than likely done with no real suspicion of involvement in crime and that makes it immoral in the eyes of many, but can anyone with more knowledge than I WRT to law and police conduct expectations shed light on the legality of their actions?  Would they be subject to legal or just disciplinary action if they knowingly detained for questioning persons who were not associated with any crime?


----------



## Sapplicant (21 Apr 2011)

Hindsight being 2020, and my imagination being what it is, I've managed to come up with this.

1. The police do nothing wrong, and have to investigate a series of VERY public aggrivated assaults causing grievous bodily harm, interview possibly hundreds, even thousands of witnesses, come up with nothing, deal with possible federal investigations, etc.

2. The police do nothing wrong, same deal, swap AA causing GHB with manslaughter.

3. The police take possible unconstitutional/illegal measures to prevent options 1 and 2 from happening.


So, who wants to be the chief of THAT dep't? It's so easy to comment looking in from thte outside, but, ummm, I can't think of a good cliche. Clusterf***.


In a perfect world, the WBC would not exist. Quel domage. I wish they'd hurry up and have a kool-aid party.


----------



## Container (21 Apr 2011)

jwtg said:
			
		

> My comments in yellow
> From a consequentialist point of view, it is hard to view their actions as immoral.  From a Kantian/imperative point of view, it is hard to view their actions as moral.  From a legal point of view, does anybody know what Mississipi law states regarding holding people for questioning?  Can people be held and questioned and released without charges being pressed?  Certainly, this situation was more than likely done with no real suspicion of involvement in crime and that makes it immoral in the eyes of many, but can anyone with more knowledge than I WRT to law and police conduct expectations shed light on the legality of their actions?  Would they be subject to legal or just disciplinary action if they knowingly detained for questioning persons who were not associated with any crime?



Feel free to look through the Irish Constitution http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/Pdf%20files/Constitution%20of%20Ireland.pdf 

"You may not hold a procession or meeting within one-half mile of the Oireachtas (Irish houses of parliament) *when it has been prohibited by the Gardai* or you have been asked to disperse."

Cram the "heresay" stuff. You were the one that introduced it.

It isnt about ethics. Its about * law * it is about society assigning duties and rules to how the duties are carried out. If they do not play by the rules they are not doing their jobs. The courts have said this type of deception is okay as without the criminal would be able to operate without fear of being caught. However, the courts have also said that I am not allowed to detain someone without cause. And I can detain them just by wearing a uniform and NOT telling them they can leave. The courts have decided that it is a normal reaction for most people to follow the direction of a police officer. So abusing that trust is an absolute no. By law. Not by ethics.

So as far as your question, in Canada, they would be subject to discipline and sanctions if they couldnt articulate good reason why they held everybody for questioning. In missisipi, like I said- they've held Canadians for 72 hours on stop signs.


----------



## DexOlesa (21 Apr 2011)

As I read it, the protesters were neither arrested nor detained. They were taken aside and questioned about possible involvement in a crime. If you read earlier in the article many suspicious things happened to the WBC vehicles etc. they would be required to be questioned as witnesses/ plaintiffs. You can choose to read it as "the police questioned these people for hours about nothing and then suddenly let them go" or you can see it as  "the Police questioned people about these occurrences around town, which they were involved in. In the end gathering enough information to know that the WBC was not responsible for any of it, letting them go. It took a chunk of time as it would, and they sadly missed their opportunity to protest at the funeral"


----------



## Cdnleaf (21 Apr 2011)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> I'm with Messieurs McKay and Cambell. The rule of law must be paramout. It is not illegal to be a complete jerk at (or near) a funeral. It is illegal to detain people without cause simply to prevent people from being a complete jerk at a funeral. Especially when said illegal act is done by the police. You know, those people who are supposed to be upholding the law?
> 
> *Engaging in peaceful protest is one of the most important freedoms that we in western societies have.* The fact that the cause that these people are protesting for / against is something that we find distasteful does not excuse members of the policy department from taking these actions to prevent them from the lawful expression of their freedom of speech.



It will be interesting to read the results of the Former Chief Justice of Ontario Roy McMurtry review of police powers during the G20; and enactment of the Public Works Protection Act.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/ontario-to-probe-secret-law-g20-police-powers/article1718143/

Police have already been cleared by the SIU, though I remember reading that a private security firm contracted by the RCMP is being charged.


----------



## Container (21 Apr 2011)

DexOlesa said:
			
		

> As I read it, the protesters were neither arrested nor detained. They were taken aside and questioned about possible involvement in a crime. If you read earlier in the article many suspicious things happened to the WBC vehicles etc. they would be required to be questioned as witnesses/ plaintiffs. You can choose to read it as "the police questioned these people for hours about nothing and then suddenly let them go" or you can see it as  "the Police questioned people about these occurrences around town, which they were involved in. In the end gathering enough information to know that the WBC was not responsible for any of it, letting them go. It took a chunk of time as it would, and they sadly missed their opportunity to protest at the funeral"



Being held for questioning, if they were not free to go about their business is detainment. Further to this you never HAVE to give a witness statement. And should somehow they be determined to be a material witness travel restrictions are usually the area and the procedure takes time and wouldnt be assigned just willy nilly to a group of protestors.

Edit for spelling.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Apr 2011)

Once again I see a whole lot of condemnation of law enforcement folks from a group of posters who would lose their friggin' minds if "we" roasted some part of the military on one flimsy story that doesn't seem to be gaining much traction...................for some reason I can't help but think you can all "hoop your foreheads".


----------



## tomahawk6 (21 Apr 2011)

The Hartford Square an Old Miss message board sheds some light on this story. Also a couple of youtube links since the original link doesnt seem to be working. According to the message board none of the Phelps bunch were arrested. As for blocking their cars - I am 100% in favor of that. Protesting at the funeral of a service member  by a group claiming to be christians is pretty low in my book.

http://nafoom.yuku.com/topic/39495/This-will-bring-a-tear-to-your-eye

http://www.youtube.com/watch?f...&v=R6n08Z9495E#at=12

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ90wDX4C6A&feature=player_embedded


----------



## 57Chevy (21 Apr 2011)

It is my understanding that the last will and testament of a person becomes law
after the death of the person. 
Normally the funeral arrangements are outlined within that last will, so as such, 
I think that both the demonstrators and the anti-demonstrators who both may be regarded
as exercising their fundamental freedom of rights are in effect actually breaking the law.
Officers of the Law are supposed to uphold the law, not engage in undermining it.
IMO The deceased has the right to be laid to rest in a peaceful manner and without consequence
from bystanders of any kind.

After the Tucson massacre, Arizona lawmakers passed a law that requires protesters to stay at least 300 feet away
from funerals 1 hour before the start, during, and 1 hour after the end of the funeral.

Perhaps other States will consider doing the same.

All in all, I think that's a good start, and perhaps fair for those who find the urge to exercise their rights in some
perverted sick way, and a Law that Officers will be able to enforce.

RIP to the fallen


----------



## cphansen (21 Apr 2011)

Somehow we're arguing in circles.

We need to state what we're really aiming for, to allow the family to bury their fallen member with dignity, respect and love. 

To do this we need to protect the venue of the funeral from known protestors without breaking the law ourselves. I would like to make a suggestion, setup a perimiter to stop disruptive influences with the police manning 2 checkpoints to allow people in or out. Disruptive influences should be told they're not welcome at the moment but they will be allowed access after a few hours.

I would suggest the perimeter be setup by the reserves or National Guard as a sign of respect for their fallen comrade. It could also be done as an aid to the civil power. The uniform should be dress blues or the equivalent. 

Thia would stop the law enforcement agencies from breaking or bending the law out of sheer frustration. It would allow the military to show a final sign of respect and honour the fallen. It would allow the family to conduct the funeral without being harrased.

I know this could be quite expensive for the military, but I suspect there would be enough volunteers who would do it without pay.


----------



## the 48th regulator (21 Apr 2011)

SherH2A said:
			
		

> Somehow we're arguing in circles.
> 
> We need to state what we're really aiming for, to allow the family to bury their fallen member with dignity, respect and love.
> 
> ...




Noble suggestion.

Do you know how many bridges are on the Highway of Heroes?  


I am not trying to be crass, but I am offering a reality check.  How much do we spend for protection?  How far do we go?  This does not even touch the actual burial site of the Member.

Too easy to offer such noble ideas, but these verministic protesters know we can not cover all angles.  Your idea is neat, but not feasible.

dileas

tess


----------



## cphansen (21 Apr 2011)

Thank you but I was referring only to the final destination. 

The bridges over the Highway of Heroes do not need to be secured, since they are above and the only way they can be used to stop the convoy is to drop something. Which is definitely illegal and I suspect the perps would be held by the local people. The law could then be used to imprison the culprit.

I don't think it's a noble suggestion, but it is a fitting suggestion and would work well for a limited area around a graveyard and or church.

I do understand the point you're making but the scale of the operation needs to be a limited one. Hopefully we would do better here in Canada than down in the USA but I don't know.


----------



## the 48th regulator (21 Apr 2011)

SherH2A said:
			
		

> Thank you but I was referring only to the final destination.
> 
> The bridges over the Highway of Heroes do not need to be secured, since they are above and the only way they can be used to stop the convoy is to drop something. Which is definitely illegal and I suspect the perps would be held by the local people. The law could then be used to imprison the culprit.
> 
> ...




Unfortunately, Canadians have created gathering points before the final destination.

Your concept is very foreign, in that Soldiers that die are brought home and buried.  

Traditionally Canadians, from the British Tradition, have buried  the dead where they fell (WE know the history and the logistics behind that).   Now, we have adopted a new concept of bringing them home.  That being said, the troops are now being brought home to be prepared and buried in Canada.  "The Highway of heroes" has been created as the route these troops take.   I am only preaching to the choir, but you miss so many points in your feel good plan.

Every bridge is filled with well wishers, led by contingents of Legion members,  front line workers, and the general public.  This is prime area for the likes of people like the WBC.  So, with your theory, we must man all of these bridges, to protect the Family.

As I said, a noble concept, logistically impossible

dileas

tess


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Apr 2011)

Most of you know I've travelled the Highway of Heroes. 

I can tell you these so called "Christians" of WBC wouldn't stand a chance on any of the 40-50 overpasses that are on that highway.

Guaranteed.


----------



## Red Devil (22 Apr 2011)

OK I can't resist putting in my simple 2c.

1. Anyone has the right to protest about anything.
2. The family and friends have a right to a peaceful funeral.
3. Insert common sense where the people of 1. are there to disrespect the people of 2.

The WBO turn up at these events only to irritate, disrupt and cause severe distress to the bereaved.
The police, therefore, acted in a way to prevent violence and protect the WBO. They *served* the greater good and* protected* the public.

JOB DONE.

Remember, your rights are a privilege. If you abuse them, then you should lose them. The WBO are lucky to have any rights as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## cphansen (22 Apr 2011)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, Canadians have created gathering points before the final destination.
> 
> Your concept is very foreign, in that Soldiers that die are brought home and buried.
> 
> ...



I don't believe its unfortunate we have created these gathering points. I think it's a gesture of respect from the local communities and with the mix of people on the overpasses, any WBC types would standout and be handled by the local police. This is not the same situation as in the USA.

I respect the old tradition of burying the fallen in a little piece of ground that will forever be Canada, but I think it is much more comforting for the family to have the body closer and to be able to see how honoured the deceased is by their local community.

I know you feel it would be a logistical nightmare to establish a cordon but it only needs to be done locally where the funeral is actually taking place. There are only two places for each funeral that needs to be protected, the church where the funeral service would take pkace and the actual graveyard.

And establishing the perimeter would be handled by the local police, perhaps the RCMP and the local reserve unit


----------



## Gimpy (22 Apr 2011)

Red Devil said:
			
		

> OK I can't resist putting in my simple 2c.
> 
> 1. Anyone has the right to protest about anything.
> 2. The family and friends have a right to a peaceful funeral.



The first is enshrined in the First Amendment while the second has no basis in law, except for Arizona currently. Guess which one trumps the other in court?

The best way of dealing with the WBC was (and still is) accomplished by the Patriot Squad. Perhaps some type of public or private funding would improve their organizations ability to serve at these funerals.


----------



## Red Devil (22 Apr 2011)

Gimpy said:
			
		

> The first is enshrined in the First Amendment while the second has no basis in law, except for Arizona currently. Guess which one trumps the other in court?
> 
> The best way of dealing with the WBC was (and still is) accomplished by the Patriot Squad. Perhaps some type of public or private funding would improve their organizations ability to serve at these funerals.



Whilst you may be legally correct, that brings me right on back to COMMON SENSE. 

A right to respect at a funeral doesn't need to be a law. There are many things that you don't need to be told are right or wrong, if you employ a modicum of COMMON SENSE.


----------



## Journeyman (22 Apr 2011)

Gimpy said:
			
		

> The best way of dealing with the WBC was (and still is) accomplished by the Patriot Squad.


I believe you may be referring to the Patriot Guard Riders.


----------



## Gimpy (22 Apr 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I believe you may be referring to the Patriot Guard Riders.



Yeah, I had just looked them up upon first reading the topic since I had read some articles about them before and I still managed to screw up their name. Thanks for the correction though. (Not sarcasm).


----------



## Journeyman (22 Apr 2011)

No worries. I know of them from having crossed paths at several motorcycle rallies. 
I support their work, and so I wear one of their crests on my biker vest; it's proven a pretty useful intro when riding in the States.


----------



## Fatalize (22 Apr 2011)

Seems like a great way of dealing with them to me.


----------



## mariomike (22 Apr 2011)

SherH2A said:
			
		

> I respect the old tradition of burying the fallen in a little piece of ground that will forever be Canada, but I think it is much more comforting for the family to have the body closer and to be able to see how honoured the deceased is by their local community.



Allied forces were not present at many of the burials, as the towns were under German occupation.
After the Liberation of Paris, the RCAF sent the seven families photos of the funeral taken by the local people. 
It was a seven-man Lancaster crew all KIA. The Canadian mothers got to know and comfort each other through correspondence because for months the crew was listed as MIA. 
The flags are for the two RAF and five RCAF airmen. They are the only Allied war graves in the cemetery.
Even if it had been offerred then or now, my family would never agree to repatriation back to Canada, or exhumation to a big military cemetery in Europe.

Edit spelling.


----------



## Kat Stevens (22 Apr 2011)

Fatalize said:
			
		

> Seems like a great way of dealing with them to me.



So is a cricket bat to the kneecaps.


----------



## gcclarke (22 Apr 2011)

Red Devil said:
			
		

> Whilst you may be legally correct, that brings me right on back to COMMON SENSE.
> 
> A right to respect at a funeral doesn't need to be a law. There are many things that you don't need to be told are right or wrong, if you employ a modicum of COMMON SENSE.



I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way. The local police don't get to pick what is "common sense". They don't get to choose what laws they'd like to ignore, or which rights it makes "sense" to suspend. The only ones who get to do that are the duly elected representatives of the people, keeping in mind whether or not any such law would survive a constitutional challenge. After all, isn't it often "common sense" to not bother getting a warrant to search the homes of known drug dealers?


----------



## Kat Stevens (22 Apr 2011)

So you're not okay with, say, getting pulled over by a cop for obviously speeding or some other clear offence, and getting off with a warning?  Because, after all, that's a LEO not sticking to to the letter of the law.  You offend, you get a ticket/fine/demerits, that's the law, no grey area.  I'd say the cops showed some creativity in preventing an ugly scene, and at the end of the day, everyone went home in one piece.  No blood, no foul.


----------



## Container (22 Apr 2011)

that discretion is supported by law. A police officer may choose- thats supported by court. Creative detention isnt.

I see what you're saying but in legal terms the comparison doesn't really work. Both have been addressed by case law.


----------



## jollyjacktar (22 Apr 2011)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way. The local police don't get to pick what is "common sense". They don't get to choose what laws they'd like to ignore, or which rights it makes "sense" to suspend. The only ones who get to do that are the duly elected representatives of the people, keeping in mind whether or not any such law would survive a constitutional challenge. After all, isn't it often "common sense" to not bother getting a warrant to search the homes of known drug dealers?



Bollocks.  It's called "officer's discretion"  There are many times you look the other way, bend the rules etc etc.  As I have said before, there is an old saying "the law is a wise man's guide and a fool's bible".  I did not bone everyone I caught committing an offense every time.  There is a time and place for everything.  The gravity of the offense, history of the offender, circumstance etc all came into play.  Now, that is not to say that every day was "let's make a deal" either.  But the only ones who go by the letter of the law, all the time, are Rookies or knobs.  When I was a Rook I was more inflexible, however, some TI, seasoning and CDF smoothed the service delivery.  
As for your last comment....  that is complete and utter stupidity.  Hollywood BS.  It's common sense to make sure you cover all the bases during the full cycle of a warrant and do the job correctly.  The job is hard enough as it is with the deck loaded in the offender's favor more and more.  If you are going after a known dealer as per your example you don't want it all to go to crap with the Crown, or at trial because you cut corners or were sloppy.

Container, you posted while I was typing.   Agreed, with creative detention.  There is a suggestion that may be the case here,  but it is not cut and dried either.  If they take the risk and do so then they also take the risk with these bunch of lawyers who make their living in court from those who do oppose them.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Apr 2011)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> If they take the risk and do so then they also take the risk with these bunch of lawyers who make their living in court from those who do oppose them.



 I agree. The authorities know that these guys are all lawyers that make their living on rights litigation against people that oppose them. Knowing that, I'm pretty sure the police knew exactly what they were doing and stayed within the bounds of their own laws.


----------



## cphansen (22 Apr 2011)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Allied forces were not present at many of the burials, as the towns were under German occupation.
> After the Liberation of Paris, the RCAF sent the seven families photos of the funeral taken by the local people.
> It was a seven-man Lancaster crew all KIA. The Canadian mothers got to know and comfort each other through correspondence because for months the crew was listed as MIA.
> The flags are for the two RAF and five RCAF airmen. They are the only Allied war graves in the cemetery.
> ...



With all respect, there is a big difference between what went on in WWII and today.

I think what the town did for those airmen and their families was done out of respect and understanding. The villagers were subject to bombing and German occupation and still they showed their caring.

I really doubt that our casualties in Afg would be treated with the same compassion, it's a different war and a different attitude.


----------



## gcclarke (22 Apr 2011)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Bollocks.  It's called "officer's discretion"  There are many times you look the other way, bend the rules etc etc.  As I have said before, there is an old saying "the law is a wise man's guide and a fool's bible".  I did not bone everyone I caught committing an offense every time.  There is a time and place for everything.  The gravity of the offense, history of the offender, circumstance etc all came into play.  Now, that is not to say that every day was "let's make a deal" either.  But the only ones who go by the letter of the law, all the time, are Rookies or knobs.  When I was a Rook I was more inflexible, however, some TI, seasoning and CDF smoothed the service delivery.
> As for your last comment....  that is complete and utter stupidity.  Hollywood BS.  It's common sense to make sure you cover all the bases during the full cycle of a warrant and do the job correctly.  The job is hard enough as it is with the deck loaded in the offender's favor more and more.  If you are going after a known dealer as per your example you don't want it all to go to crap with the Crown, or at trial because you cut corners or were sloppy.
> 
> Container, you posted while I was typing.   Agreed, with creative detention.  There is a suggestion that may be the case here,  but it is not cut and dried either.  If they take the risk and do so then they also take the risk with these bunch of lawyers who make their living in court from those who do oppose them.



Allow me to clarify further. I am always utterly opposed to people in positions of authority using said authority, outside or the law or relevant regulations etc, against someone else. Every example you stated was about cutting someone slack because you can judge that they deserve it. That's fairly reasonable. What would be unreasonable would be to bust someone for something that they didn't do, because they probably deserved it. Or, in this case, "bring someone in for questioning" just because you don't want them to be able to exercise their legal right to protest peaceably. Of course, just because these are despicable human beings, everyone here seems to want to jump on the bandwagon of denying them their human rights. 

Personally, I think that's despicable in and of itself. Change the scenario to someone else, shall we? A man has an event he wants to attend, an interview for his dream job. But his ex-wife is a cop, and hears about the interview. She decides it would be a good idea to "bring him in" for some questioning during the interview. He misses it, and when the would be employer hears it was because he was being interrogated by the police, decides not to re-schedule the interview. Is what went on in Brandon MS any more or any less defensible than this? It's the same action after all. 

So yeah. Bending the law like this is not, in my opinion, acceptable. "Creative detainment" is no better than "Creative accounting" or "Creative interpenetration of Rules of Engagement". I hold people in roles of authority to a higher standard of conduct, and these police officers have failed to achieve it. That department deserves every penny of the lawsuit they're going to invariably lose over this.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Apr 2011)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> I hold people in roles of authority to a higher standard of conduct, and these police officers have failed to achieve it. That department deserves every penny of the lawsuit they're going to invariably lose  over this.




Well then, lets just march those guilty bastards in, shall we?

Why is it those who whine, cry and generally wring thier hands about "rights" are always the first to trample those who do their best to uphold them?
Pathetic,  just 100% pathetic.

Bruce


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Apr 2011)

Law enforcement cannot pick and choose which rights it will protect. The US Supreme Court, on 2 Mar 11, decided that WBC _protests_ at the funerals of US military members are _”... entitled to 'special protection' under the First Amendment and that protection cannot be overcome by a jury finding that the picketing was outrageous."_

Now, I happen to believe, but no court, to the best of my knowledge, has yet to agree, that our _right_ to *privacy* ought to extend to a decent “space” around which we can conduct our  most personal rituals – including burying family members. I think that the WBC's _right_ to free expression – free from amateur hour interpretation by LEOs – conflicts with families' _rights_ to privacy. If a court ever holds that to be true then the LEOs will have to find ways to allow the WBC to express itself, openly and publicly, no matter how outrageously, without intruding into the private 'space' of the families. Now, some (many?) will argue that's what they did in this situation. And maybe they did, but if they did then they, sworn Law Enforcement officers, thumbed their noses at the US Supreme Court and that sort of conduct is, at the very least, unprofessional and is, in my opinion unacceptable and indefensible.

Law Enforcement does not get to pick and choose between my rights and your rights. If LEOs want to do that they can take off their uniforms, put away their guns and warrant cards, go to law school and become judges. Until then they have a sworn duty to uphold the law, all the laws – as *decided* by the US Supreme Court for US LEOs.


----------



## Petard (22 Apr 2011)

There seems to be a very big assumption being made that the police did not have reasonable cause to interview these people. We don't know that, or even if their intent was to thwart them from protesting at the funeral.
All we have is a post from an article that seems to be as reliable as any blog. 

A bit of research can reveal a whole lot of the garbage about what the WBC stands for. Their activities though, in particular of protesting at private funerals, has resulted in some states enacting laws prohibiting their kind of activity from disrupting the dignity and solemnity of the occasion, either by distance, time, or both, but still respecting their right for free speech. In some of these state laws it is a felony to protest in the manner the WBC has protested. A few of the WBC members have been convicted of breaking these laws, usually for protesting too close to the funeral itself. In some cases they were convicted for what amounted to tresspassing.

Their earlier activities skirted around the edges of what the protection of free speech allows. Their tactics have escalated somewhat recently. The group needs to be able to sue for damages in order to sustain itself. This escalation of activity, looks to me, why many of these states have enacted the laws they did.

Since the WBC has members that fly out of state to conduct their activities, it is a reasonable assumption some may have participated in protests in states in a manner that is a felony to do so, and could very well of been under investigation or indicted for those acts when they went to this funeral.

I don't know why the police brought those people in for questioning, but it would be very reasonable to under the grounds they were suspect in illegal activities before; who knows for sure? 

But in the end, from the information provided so far, we really don't know why the police officers involved brought them in for questioning.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Apr 2011)

As I said, given the way the WBC raises funds, I would certainly expect that the LEOs didn't take the approach they did without the thought of repercussion or in a wholly cavalier nature. I'm pretty sure they felt they were on solid legal ground before doing what they did.

In the end though, as Petard says, until something substantial can be acertained as to exactly what happened, we're chasing our tails berating each other for our views.


----------



## ModlrMike (22 Apr 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> As I said, given the way the WBC raises funds, I would certainly expect that the LEOs didn't take the approach they did without the thought of repercussion or in a wholly cavalier nature. I'm pretty sure they felt they were on solid legal ground before doing what they did.



I _*think*_ that it's a Federal offense to leave one state in order to commit an offense in another, even if the action wouldn't be a crime in one's home state. Perhaps this was the grounds the police used to question the WBC folks? There may be an interstate statute that was contravened at some point?


----------



## Red Devil (23 Apr 2011)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way. The local police don't get to pick what is "common sense". They don't get to choose what laws they'd like to ignore, or which rights it makes "sense" to suspend. The only ones who get to do that are the duly elected representatives of the people, keeping in mind whether or not any such law would survive a constitutional challenge. After all, isn't it often "common sense" to not bother getting a warrant to search the homes of known drug dealers?



Firstly, I think you're being a little naive if you don't think there is a human element to any and every situation involving law enforcement personnel. Hence they are constantly using common sense just like you and I in our daily works situations.

Secondly in reference to your comment which I've highlighted in red - ARE YOU FOR REAL??????


----------



## bwatch (23 Apr 2011)

Without the men and women who these people are against, they would have no rights at all. It is because of the people they are against,  they have rights. I guess the people of Westboro forget this. It's like biting the hand that feeds them.


----------



## Nauticus (23 Apr 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Then I suggest before you start making judgements and spouting off about who's rights are being violated, you delve deeply into what a bunch of disgusting, litigious assholes the WBC really are. Police are there 'To Serve and Protect" and I believe they did just fine in that aspect.



Although I agree that the WBC _is_ the absolute scum of the earth, having a knowledge of their background for context *should not* and *should never* be a requirement to determine "who's rights were violated". The answer is: WBC's rights were violated. It's not our place to care what they do or say.

With that said, I also mentioned they are the scum of the earth, so I wouldn't be in any hurry to get up and do anything about their rights getting trampled on.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (23 Apr 2011)

Nauticus said:
			
		

> Although I agree that the WBC _is_ the absolute scum of the earth, having a knowledge of their background for context *should not* and *should never* be a requirement to determine "who's rights were violated". The answer is: WBC's rights were violated. It's not our place to care what they do or say.
> 
> With that said, I also mentioned they are the scum of the earth, so I wouldn't be in any hurry to get up and do anything about their rights getting trampled on.




Now I'm starting to get pissed,...were you even fuckin' there and/ or in on what was investigated?   If not then STFU about who did what to whom.


If you require remedial thinking check Edward's last post and read how he uses proper wording to convey that "if" things happened then, etc, etc,......


----------



## Neill McKay (24 Apr 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Then I suggest before you start making judgements and spouting off about who's rights are being violated



Hardly "spouting off".  But anyway:



> you delve deeply into what a bunch of disgusting, litigious assholes the WBC really are.



The point, which others have expressed more eloquently than I can, is that it doesn't much matter who they are.

I've done some reading about them and I join the majority here in condemning them.  Based on what I've read they're awful people who deserve all sorts of nasty things.  My impression from the article quoted above is that the police may have acted improperly in holding for questioning people who they did not, in good faith, believe had committed any crime.  It would be wrong to do that, however good their intentions and however unsavoury their "suspects".

As you've mentioned elsewhere, this group doesn't seem to have any shortage of legal talent and the police may very well have made sure to have all of their Is dotted and Ts crossed, and I hope that's the case.  But it's interesting how many people here seem to feel that the end would have justified the means even if the police were known to have colored outside of the lines.


----------



## jollyjacktar (24 Apr 2011)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> But it's interesting how many people here seem to feel that the end would have justified the means even if the police were known to have colored outside of the lines.



Whys should that be interesting?  As humans, on the whole, most people enjoy seeing assholes coming up short.  Why should many of us be any different?  It's a character flaw of mine that I do, guilty as charged.  I would throughly enjoy any plague of biblical proportions that might afflict these WBC things.  This will do nicely for a start.



			
				N. McKay said:
			
		

> My impression from the article quoted above is that the police may have acted improperly in holding for questioning people who they did not, in good faith, believe had committed any crime.  It would be wrong to do that, however good their intentions and however unsavoury their "suspects".



And that is the point that some of us here have made, there is no smoking gun to point that they did act improperly either.  You Neil, and others are jumping at conclusions where none may exist.  The decision appears to been made to "convict and pillory" the police department by some members of this forum without the benefit of clear evidence or trial.  For all the tub thumping about rights being trampled by overzealous police personnel who have apparently left their professionalism at the door, I find it "interesting" that there are many pots to call the kettle black out there by virtue of demonizing a group of people who may not have committed a crime....... irony, no?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Apr 2011)

I'll try be a little more clear.

All you people defending the rights of the WBC have to stop.

You weren't there. You do not know the circumstances behind the questioning. You don't know what their law allows. You don't know what the District Attorney gave as instruction, and a whole bunch of other stuff you're not privvy to or cognizant of.

In short, all you are doing is wrongfully speculating based on your own beliefs and OUR Charter. The only information, which is no where near enough, that you have, is from one personal blog. Hardly the thing to be building a civil right violation case on.

Relax and pull in your horns. All you are doing, right now, is stating your personal opinion on an incident you really know nothing about. An opinion, in this case, that holds no weight because you don't have the facts.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Apr 2011)

My comments are embedded.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> I'll try be a little more clear.
> Well, if you insist ...
> 
> All you people defending the rights of the WBC have to stop.
> ...


----------



## Gimpy (24 Apr 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'll try be a little more clear.
> 
> All you people defending the rights of the WBC have to stop.
> 
> ...



So then are you fine with saying the same thing to the people supporting the actions of the police officers without all of the facts and it being an incident that no one here knows nothing about? If this is the case then I'm not certain why this thread remains open because there is nothing to discuss and this was really just an exercise in futility from the get go due to the weakness of the original posting.


----------



## the 48th regulator (24 Apr 2011)

As an aside, Louis Theroux did a fantastic documentary called The Most Hated Family in America.  In it he shows a behind the scenes look at the whole clan. 


This year he followed up with America's Most Hated Family in Crisis which shows the family slowly imploding because of it's twisted view of life.

I recommend watching both to get a true sense of what this crowd is about.

dileas

tess


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Apr 2011)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> As an aside, Louis Theroux did a fantastic documentary called The Most Hated Family in America.  In it he shows a behind the scenes look at the whole clan.
> 
> 
> This year he followed up with America's Most Hated Family in Crisis which shows the family slowly imploding because of it's twisted view of life.
> ...




Their reprehensible beliefs and conduct are, precisely, why they *need* and deserve the protection of the law - of the state and its servants. You and I do not need a whole lot of extra protection - we do not exercise our right to free conscience and expression by offending almost everyone. The WBC does; *but* it's expression is, specifically, protected - that's an order to US law enforcement from the US Supreme Court.

Just as the only good Christian is the one who defends Christopher Hitchens' and Richard Dawkins' right to preach atheism, and the only good Jew is he or she who defends Ernst Zündel's and David Irving's right to propagate their nonsense, so the only good government official is the one who protects the WBC's right to insult the rest of us. And the good official doesn't defend the WBC because the _Supremes_ said so; he defends their rights because they, those rights, exist for all of us - even the worst of us, and he does so because defending those rights - even for the worst of us - is the highest calling of a public servant.



Edit: typo (double word)  :-[


----------



## GeorgeD (24 Apr 2011)

> A few made it to the funeral but were ushered away to be questioned about a crime they might have possibly been involved in. Turns out, after a few hours of questioning, that they were not involved and they were allowed to go on about their business.




I might be misunderstanding this part but it seems to me it was voluntary, does not say they were arrested. I'm entirely sure but Police Officers, can question people without arresting them, and those same people can REFUSE to be questoned. For the Officers to arrest them they need a cause and I'm not sure they would do this without one. To me it seems they went in, asked to question them about a possible crime, and the WBC voluntarily went to be questioned. 


Also it is my understanding freedom of speech is not absolute as there are restrictions on it. In this case, the WBC spread rumors that were knowingly false, as it is kinda hard to prove that the parents of the Dead Marine raised him for the "devil" as well taught him "to defy his Creator, to divorce, and to commit adultery". Freedom of speech was designed to protect individuals from undue persecution due to their beliefs, in my view, it was NOT designed to protect people who use their speech to attack innocent bystanders. 

This animals are picketing funerals for anyone, weather it military or not. People that died in a bridge collapse, because they dislike the city those people lived in.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Apr 2011)

Well, whether I'm right or morally bankrupt, I'm done here. I just can't get that excited about whether these dufusses were treated right or not. I'm also not going to spend anymore time trying to explain where I'm coming from, nor do I really care if someone else looks at me with a jaundiced eye because of what I believe.

To quote our own, "I'll now retire to Bedlam"


----------



## the 48th regulator (24 Apr 2011)

Edward, RC,


I have no argument in this.  I just wanted to post some good documentaries done by Louis Theroux....I apologize if my post was interpreted as me siding with the WBC.

I could really care less if their "rights" were violated, or not.  I can not stand what they do, or what they stand for, and I certainly don't wish to argue the minutiae of what the law enforcement did in this incident.


dileas

tess

And as I have said before, I too shall retire to Bedlham...


----------



## Nauticus (24 Apr 2011)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Now I'm starting to get pissed,...were you even ******' there and/ or in on what was investigated?   If not then STFU about who did what to whom.
> 
> 
> If you require remedial thinking check Edward's last post and read how he uses proper wording to convey that "if" things happened then, etc, etc,......



Simmer out and cut the condescending tone. This is a message board and posters on said message board _should be_ allowed to present their opinions in a professional, and reasonable, manner. Which is _exactly_ what I did.

You're "directing staff". I expected better from you than to throw a temper tantrum because you disagree with something I post.

Here's what we know: WBC has the right to peaceful protest. We also know that they were knowingly denied that right. Whether the LEO acted lawfully or not, I'm not debating that. I am stating that, based on the information provided, it appears to me that the WBC were denied their right of peaceful protest. Don't get your panties in a bunch, because nobody else is.

Re-read my post. The history of the WBC holds absolutely no relevance to whether or not they should be allowed to practice their right of peaceful protest. We *do know* that they were unable to do so.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Apr 2011)

Yea, cause everything I KNOW, I learned from a blog....................... :rofl:


----------



## Nauticus (24 Apr 2011)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Yea, cause everything I KNOW, I learned from a blog....................... :rofl:


And if the blog is false, then this whole situation never happened and this whole debate is pointless and you threw a temper tantrum for no reason.

Although we won't discover whether it's true or not, you were debating just as aggressively as everyone else.

Oh well. This turned from an intelligent, professional debate based on civil rights to a disgraceful orgy of sarcasm, name-calling, and hissy fits.

I'm out.


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 Apr 2011)

Nauticus said:
			
		

> We also know that they were knowingly denied that right.



I know nothing of the sort, and neither do you as we were not there.  As recce pointed out succinctly.


----------



## Container (28 Apr 2011)

Gimpy said:
			
		

> So then are you fine with saying the same thing to the people supporting the actions of the police officers without all of the facts and it being an incident that no one here knows nothing about? If this is the case then I'm not certain why this thread remains open because there is nothing to discuss and this was really just an exercise in futility from the get go due to the weakness of the original posting.



There has been a tone of threads where people have gone on the defence of "the system" and were told to wait for the facts. Generally any thread that comes from a CF member being charged gets a warning about any comments about the persons guilt or innocence. 

I also think it was pointed out several times how futile the threads comments are- it basically boils down to we dont know enough.

The article is written right Hollywood- and suggests that the clever cops kept the bad WBC from the funeral by being clever. Wink Wink nudge nudge. I would suggest that if this is indeed the case then the police will be liable. But in reality  suspect something else went on. 

This is really similar to the story of the Marines and the Christmas gifts:

"Shoplifter injured in Atlanta
           Orville Smith, a store manager for Best Buy in Augusta , Georgia , told police he observed 
           a male customer, later identified as Tyrone Jackson of Augusta , on surveillance cameras 
           putting a laptop computer under his jacket... When confronted the man became irate,      knocked 
           down an employee, drew a knife and ran for the door.

Outside on the sidewalk were four Marines, collecting toys for the "Toys for Tots" program. Smith 
said the Marines stopped the man, but he stabbed one of the Marines, Cpl. Phillip Duggan, in the 
back; the injury however, did not appear to be severe.

 After Police and an ambulance arrived at the scene, Cpl. Duggan was transported for treatment. 
The subject was also transported to the local hospital with two broken arms, a broken ankle, a 
broken leg, several missing teeth, possible broken ribs, multiple contusions, assorted lacerations, 
a broken nose and a broken jaw... injuries he sustained when he slipped and fell off of the curb 
after stabbing the Marine. 

Now, that is what I would call an exceptionally well written Police report."

Which is actually only kinda what happened: http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/stabbedmarine.asp


I think the suggestion of "wink wink nudge nudge" is intentional and is meant to entertain more than inform. The reality would be very different.


----------



## Sapplicant (28 Apr 2011)

Eventually, some VERY distraught family member in the States WILL confront them with a wall of hot lead. That is, unless ways can be found to prevent these "Protests" from happening. The Patriot Guard Riders are definitetly onto something, but unfortunately, when they can't make it, the police must do their best to keep a handle on things, and try to do it within the confines of their own set of laws. I'll be very upset if the soon-to-be headline reads "Multiple police officers Killed in WBC protest shooting". VERY upset. 

Yes, these creatures have rights. But they seemingly shrug off any and all responsibility for their  misuse of said rights, and exploit the consequences of their actions to the best of their ability, and personal gain. Sounds like very civilized, respectable, non-barbaric, and above all, Christian-like behaviour to me. Permitting these kinds of people to flourish and prosper is why we're now faced with the halting, and in some cases, reversal, of the Flynn Effect.


----------



## Sapplicant (2 May 2011)

Rumor has it they plan on protesting Bin Laden's funeral  ;D


----------



## Sythen (19 Sep 2011)

Couldn't find a topic dedicated to these clowns, so I choose this necro thred to bump with more pwnage of the Westboro Church, this time by the Foo Fighters..

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/19/foo-fighters-protest-westboro-baptist-church/?hpt=hp_c2



> (CNN)– Rock stars the Foo Fighters played an impromptu show for a group of protesters from Westboro Baptist Church who had come to protest outside the band's show Friday night in Kansas City, Kansas.
> 
> Band members jumped onto a flatbed truck, sporting costumes they wore in a recent video parody, parked across the street from the protest, and sang "Hot Buns," CNN affiliate KSHB reported.


----------



## Robert0288 (20 Sep 2011)

I don't know what they expected trying to protest there.  But good on the counter prote--- ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNO-TOAD


----------



## FlyingDutchman (20 Sep 2011)

Der Panzerkommandant.... said:
			
		

> All hail the hypno-toad!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That show has gone down hill since season three.


----------



## ballz (20 Sep 2011)

owa said:
			
		

> It's too bad religious groups have to deal with these types of nimrods.  There's always a few idiots.  I may be atheist, but I support organized religion, and it's too bad there are idiots like this, haha.
> 
> But it does make me happy to know that their level of support is so low in the larger population.  I think that's a good sign for humanity


?
Huh? Are you saying it's too bad the Westboro Baptist Church group had to deal with nimrods like the Comic people?


----------



## PuckChaser (20 Sep 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> ?
> Huh? Are you saying it's too bad the Westboro Baptist Church group had to deal with nimrods like the Comic people?



No, he's saying that organized mainstream religions have to deal with these nutjobs who try to skew their message and ruin their credibility.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Jul 2012)

I like it. :nod:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2012/07/30/20043291.html

Zombies descend on Westboro protest 


Zombies outnumbered Westboro Baptist Church members 300 to eight at a military base protest in Washington on Friday. 
The small but vocal Kansas-based church announced plans to picket the Joint Base Lewis-McChord in DuPont last week. 

The reason for the protest was unclear, but the infamous group has made a habit of protesting funerals — including those of children, murder victims and U.S. soldiers — claiming God killed them because of America's tolerance of homosexuality. 


More on link.


----------



## jollyjacktar (30 Jul 2012)

Too bad that if the zombies went there in search of brains to eat they would have gone hungry with the Westboro crowd.  I love to see the counter protests.  A peaceful way to shut those assholes down.


----------



## Sythen (10 Aug 2012)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/02/veterans-bill-military-funerals_n_1733080.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#slide=1191005



> Westboro Baptist Church protesters will soon be severely limited in their ability to disrupt military funerals, after Congress passed a sweeping veterans bill this week that includes restrictions on such demonstrations.
> 
> According to "The Honoring America’s Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012," which is now headed to President Barack Obama's desk, demonstrators will no longer be allowed to picket military funerals two hours before or after a service. The bill also requires protestors to be at least 300 feet away from grieving family members.



More on link.

One part of me hates the thought of any restrictions on peaceful protest, the rest of me says its about damn time. I don't mind being called a hypocrite for supporting this at all.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Aug 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/02/veterans-bill-military-funerals_n_1733080.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#slide=1191005
> 
> More on link.
> 
> One part of me hates the thought of any restrictions on peaceful protest, the rest of me says its about damn time. I don't mind being called a hypocrite for supporting this at all.



Protesting a funeral has nothing to do with freedom of speech or making a political stand.  All it's intended to do is cause emotional pain and suffering while using death to grab air time.


----------



## brihard (10 Aug 2012)

Yup. 'Reasonable limitations'. It's inherently part of our constitutional law up here; a lot murkier down in the U.S. I'll be curious just in the academic sense to see where this one goes legally.

Anyway, sorry, law nerd off. Speaking just as a dude, these folks are total friggin' dirtbags, and I hope this law can be allowed to stand. I'm with Sythen in being willing to accept accusations of hypocrisy on this one.


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Aug 2012)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Yup. 'Reasonable limitations'. It's inherently part of our constitutional law up here; a lot murkier down in the U.S. I'll be curious just in the academic sense to see where this one goes legally.
> 
> Anyway, sorry, law nerd off. Speaking just as a dude, these folks are total friggin' dirtbags, and I hope this law can be allowed to stand. I'm with Sythen in being willing to accept accusations of hypocrisy on this one.



But you hit the nail on the head with Section 1 of our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms as this would apply in Canada:



> 1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such *reasonable limits* prescribed by law as can be *demonstrably justified in a free and democratic* society.



I would say that if anything like that were attempted in Canada, that such "free speech" could be considered criminal harassment under Section 264 of the Canadian Criminal Code:



> CRIMINAL HARASSMENT
> 
> 264 (1) No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.
> 
> ...



As a member of a democratic society, I would not lose a single second of sleep if such similar conduct were to be considered "reasonably limited" IAW the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (by the Criminal Code).


Regards
G2G


----------



## brihard (12 Aug 2012)

Yup, Section 1 was exactly what I had in mind and why I chose that wording.

I'm not sure a 264 could stick- the key there being 'to fear for their safety or the safety of others'. WBC have, for all their myriad despicable actions, proven to be rather harmless in any real sense.

Section 1 could, however, be at least argued to protect a law along the lines of that passed by our neighbours to the south.


----------



## jollyjacktar (16 Dec 2012)

These a-holes now plan to visit the site and praise God for his judgment.  If there is a God, it would please me to no end to see him smite them publicly and permanently.



> Outrage as Westboro Baptist plans praise gathering outside Sandy Hook Elementary school to celebrate God 'executing his judgement' in horrific shooting rampage that killed 20 children and 6 adults
> 
> By Leslie Larson
> PUBLISHED: 05:46 GMT, 16 December 2012 | UPDATED: 10:46 GMT, 16 December 2012
> ...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Dec 2012)

This may help, Jollyjactar,
I'm not a fan of the hacking group "Anonymous" but I'll just have to live with being a hypocrite this time............. :nod:


 http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2012/12/16/20435151.html 
December 16, 2012  

Anonymous targets Westboro Church for planning Newtown picket 
By QMI Agency 
   
The infamous hacker group Anonymous has struck again. 

On Sunday, it posted the names and addresses of members of the extremist Westboro Baptist Church after the hate group announced plans to picket Sandy Hook Elementary school in Newtown, Conn., where 26 people were gunned down Friday. 
Anonymous posted the following two messages on Twitter on the weekend: "Dear WBC Site Admin, you should really work on securing your personal infos. Er, too late..." 

Earlier, it tweeted: "It's so nice of #WBC to provide the internet with a list of their twitter handles.." 
The list of the church members, which also includes email addresses and work numbers, can be easily accessed on sites like armywtfmoments.com. 

At the bottom of a story that appeared on now.msn.com, one reader posted: "Good for you Anonymous....These are not people....They are sub-human trash....For them to target ANY of these innocent victims and their families, is just further proof of that....There should be a petition passed around to have people like this ARRESTED and PROCECUTED for planning and/or disrupting ANY funerals, vigils, etc.....If there is a hell, everyone associated with this 'church' would have a first-class ticket to it." 

Media reports say that hours after the tragedy, the group's Shirley Phelps-Roper tweeted: "Westboro will picket Sandy Hook Elementary School to sing praise to God for the glory of his work in executing his judgment." 
On its website, GodHatesFags.com, the organization states its mission is to conduct peaceful demonstrations against "soul-damning, nation-destroying filth." 
In the past, the vicious anti-gay group has picketed the funerals of U.S. soldiers and AIDS victims as well as the funerals of those who were killed in a shooting in Arizona. 

Anonymous is also petitioning the U.S. government to recognize the Westboro Baptist Church as a hate group. 
"Their actions have been directed at many groups, including homosexuals, military, Jewish people and even other Christians. They pose a threat to the welfare and treatment of others and will  not improve without some form of imposed regulation," the petition reads.


----------



## cupper (16 Dec 2012)

I'm sure that there will be a good number of local law enforcement members who will make themselves available to make things very difficult for these A-holes to carry out their protests.


----------



## Maxadia (16 Dec 2012)

Maybe I'm missing something here...what exactly are they going to protest?


----------



## the 48th regulator (16 Dec 2012)

RDJP said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm missing something here...what exactly are they going to protest?



They claim that God Sent the shooter...

http://www.godhatesfags.com/#

dileas

tess


----------



## jollyjacktar (16 Dec 2012)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> This may help, Jollyjactar,
> I'm not a fan of the hacking group "Anonymous" but I'll just have to live with being a hypocrite this time............. :nod:



Well, it's a start.  BZ to Anonymous.     I was hoping for a plague of locusts, herpes, rabid chipmunks...  This will do nicely for a start, but I'd like to see them put out of business for good like that Camping idiot.


----------



## Maxadia (16 Dec 2012)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> They claim that God Sent the shooter...
> 
> http://www.godhatesfags.com/#
> 
> ...



Oh, FFS....are you serious? Whose God would send that on anyone?


----------



## Maxadia (16 Dec 2012)

Can't access the link.  Congrats to Anonymous.


----------



## Journeyman (16 Dec 2012)

RDJP said:
			
		

> Oh, FFS....are you serious? Who's Whose God would send that on anyone?


I _was_ going to say, why blame human stupidity on some mythical character, but then I remembered.......







   :nod:


----------



## cupper (16 Dec 2012)

Here is a link to CNET's coverage of the Westboro situation.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57559468-93/hackers-target-westboro-baptist-church-after-newtown-threat/

It has a copy of the tweet from Shirley Phelps - Roper, daughter and consigliere of Rev. Phelps, leader of the WBC group.



> Westboro will picket Sandy Hook Elementary School to sing praise to God for the glory of his work in executing his judgment.



And Anonymous quote



> We will not allow you to corrupt the minds of America with your seeds of hatred. We will not allow you to inspire aggression to the social factions which you deem inferior. We will render you obsolete. We will destroy you. We are coming.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (16 Dec 2012)

Just what can Anonymous do to them anyway?


----------



## Journeyman (16 Dec 2012)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Just what can Anonymous do to them anyway?


Be an irritant...

...much like Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in Halloween, because they hate it when people come to their doors to bother them.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (16 Dec 2012)

Just listened to their message.  They sound a bit more then peeved.


----------



## the 48th regulator (16 Dec 2012)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Just what can Anonymous do to them anyway?



Nothing absolutely nothing.  Being that they are the elite hackers of today, what could they do??
 :sarcasm:

Not like they could broadcast their Addresses, Work info, Bank information, Criminal records.....You know all the stuff you and I would like kept hidden.

 :facepalm:


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (16 Dec 2012)

I meant more physical actions.  Can they freeze their bank accounts or tag away their money?  Can they plant a virus to make all their computers expensive paper weights?  Those kind of actions


----------



## teabag (17 Dec 2012)

Am I the only one who sees the irony in all this?  An anonymous group who is able to - among other things - protest due in part to their anonymity reveals the personal details of a group that protests openly out in public where the world can see their faces.  Does nobody else the irony here?

By no means am I in agreement with the church but you have to admit they are vocal about their beliefs and are not afraid to voice them even when it is controversial.  Meanwhile, most people would just bite their lip and comment about their grievances or discuss their personal beliefs behind closed doors.  

Here's another food for thought.  Some posters mentioned the right of the church to protest and the sanctity of that right; however on the flip side you have people from sites related to whistle-blowers who are detained and/or sanctioned against for exercising similar rights.  I suppose if at some point the church's protests became an issue of national security then it may be fair to compare them?


----------



## missing1 (17 Dec 2012)

Urmimu said:
			
		

> Here's another food for thought.  Some posters mentioned the right of the church to protest and the sanctity of that right;



I agree but what of my right to grieve the loss of my son at the graveside and not be bothered by these type of protests. Whose rights are the most important?  ???


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Dec 2012)

missing1 said:
			
		

> I agree but what of my right to grieve the loss of my son at the graveside and not be bothered by these type of protests. Whose rights are the most important?  ???



Yours.


----------



## brihard (17 Dec 2012)

It gets better. The KKK showed up to counter protest WBC.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/klu-klux-klan-protests-westboro-baptist-church-video/2011/05/31/AGgoiPFH_blog.html


----------



## SeaKingTacco (17 Dec 2012)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Yours.



I'm sorry, but I disagree.  The Westboro people are ignorant and unforgiveably rude buffoons who have absolutely no shred of decency.  That said, there is no "right" not to be offended.

Unless the Westboro people are actually inciting violence, they have a right to free speech, as miserable as their message is.  If you disagree with this- consider:  Who then decides what is acceptable to say?  You?  A government agency?  How long in advance of your "free" speech does one submit draft of that speech for approval?


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Dec 2012)

Urmimu said:
			
		

> Am I the only one who sees the irony in all this?  An anonymous group who is able to - among other things - protest due in part to their anonymity reveals the personal details of a group that protests openly out in public where the world can see their faces.  Does nobody else the irony here?
> 
> By no means am I in agreement with the church but you have to admit they are vocal about their beliefs and are not afraid to voice them even when it is controversial.  Meanwhile, most people would just bite their lip and comment about their grievances or discuss their personal beliefs behind closed doors.
> 
> Here's another food for thought.  Some posters mentioned the right of the church to protest and the sanctity of that right; however on the flip side you have people from sites related to whistle-blowers who are detained and/or sanctioned against for exercising similar rights.  I suppose if at some point the church's protests became an issue of national security then it may be fair to compare them?




I detest the people in the Westboro Baptist Church, they are closer to pond scum than to rational human beings,  and I might contribute to the defence fund of anyone who subjected members to a public flogging ... *BUT* they do have a right to free speech in our _liberal_ democracy - but please note that they might be flogged (as punishment for an offence against the public order) in the _conservative_ democracy of Singapore - and we, _liberal_ democrats hold that right to be of great importance. Does it trump someone else's right to privacy? Yes, when a person wants to commit a private act (grieving) in a public place - like a cemetery.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (17 Dec 2012)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but I disagree.  The Westboro people are ignorant and unforgiveably rude buffoons who have absolutely no shred of decency.  That said, there is no "right" not to be offended.
> 
> Unless the Westboro people are actually inciting violence, they have a right to free speech, as miserable as their message is.  If you disagree with this- consider:  Who then decides what is acceptable to say?  You?  A government agency?  How long in advance of your "free" speech does one submit draft of that speech for approval?



Unless they are deemed to be a group who incites hate and I believe can be arrested.


----------



## jollyjacktar (17 Dec 2012)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but I disagree.  The Westboro people are ignorant and unforgiveably rude buffoons who have absolutely no shred of decency.  That said, there is no "right" not to be offended.
> 
> Unless the Westboro people are actually inciting violence, they have a right to free speech, as miserable as their message is.  If you disagree with this- consider:  Who then decides what is acceptable to say?  You?  A government agency?  How long in advance of your "free" speech does one submit draft of that speech for approval?



I'll have to disagree with you as well.  I lean more towards E.R.'s thoughts and then some.  The rights of the bereaved outweigh any rights to free speech that the Westboro's might enjoy.   They're to my mind abusing their rights with their abuse of others.  A line must come somewhere.  

If the day does come that someone loses the bubble and does something drastic to those people I hope it's caught on film so I can see the fall.  Will be as good as Predator porn.


----------



## Maxadia (17 Dec 2012)

The Supreme Court upheld their right to protest.

However, to quote some unknown person who was speaking about something completely different:

"*Is it illegal? No.  

Is it despicable? Yes. *"


----------



## Old Sweat (17 Dec 2012)

RDJP beat me to it. 

A backgrounder on the church, includings its brushes adventures with the law, if not justice, can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Dec 2012)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but I disagree.  The Westboro people are ignorant and unforgiveably rude buffoons who have absolutely no shred of decency.  That said, there is no "right" not to be offended.
> 
> Unless the Westboro people are actually inciting violence, they have a right to free speech, as miserable as their message is.  If you disagree with this- consider:  Who then decides what is acceptable to say?  You?  A government agency?  How long in advance of your "free" speech does one submit draft of that speech for approval?



You're right of course. They have the right to protest and be assholes, I understand that.  I feel those rights are being abused and they're undeserving of being afford those rights.
 I'm wrong in that belief but it's what I choose to believe.  I can't offer a good answer on who should decide what is acceptable to say and what isn't but I would love to see their right of free speech taken away from them, as hypocritical as that is.


----------



## Kat Stevens (17 Dec 2012)

I wonder how these loathsome creatures would react if a nutter shot up one of their meetings with great loss of life.  Would they then fall to their knees and thank The Sweet Lord Baby Jesus for carrying out his will, or would the reaction more resemble all those poor parents'?


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Dec 2012)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I'll have to disagree with you as well.  I lean more towards E.R.'s thoughts and then some.  The rights of the bereaved outweigh any rights to free speech that the Westboro's might enjoy.   They're to my mind abusing their rights with their abuse of others.  A line must come somewhere.
> 
> If the day does come that someone loses the bubble and does something drastic to those people I hope it's caught on film so I can see the fall.  Will be as good as Predator porn.




Then you misread my thoughts - which is my fault for not being sufficiently clear. Much as I detest those people, much as I would enjoy seeing them exposed to *justice* rather than protected by *law*, I fully support their right to do what they do, despicable though it is, because I am a _liberal_ and I believe in more rights, not fewer, and I believe that a right is only worth something when we are forced to stand up *FOR* the scum at Westboro Baptist Church. You can grieve or mourn wherever you like, but if you choose to do so in public, in, say, a cemetery, then you must share the public space with people who will be unpleasant, to say the least. If free speech matters as much as many of us say it does then this, filthy, hateful, low speech must be protected.


----------



## jollyjacktar (17 Dec 2012)

Thank you for the correction, E.R.  My apologies for getting the wrong end of the stick with your post.  Especially with what follows...

I'll have to stand alone or at least with minimal company on this one.  I personally would have no quibble with them being muzzled either by law, Hannibal Lecter attire or which ever works.  Any sorrows that may be visited upon them will bring no tears from me, only joy.  If you abuse your rights then you should lose them.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (17 Dec 2012)

Can't yell fire in a movie theatre.  Shouldn't be able to spread hate either.


----------



## brihard (17 Dec 2012)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Can't yell fire in a movie theatre.  Shouldn't be able to spread hate either.



Yelling 'fire' endangers people in a stampede. Expressing vitriol does not physically endanger people.

We DO have criminal laws against *incitement* of hatred; those who actively try to *spread* it. But that's very distinct form merely *expressing* it. Good luck writing 'you can't say that' laws that are sufficiently discriminate to target only expressions that are actually demonstrably wrong, and not merely unpopular.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Dec 2012)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Thank you for the correction, E.R.  My apologies for getting the wrong end of the stick with your post.  Especially with what follows...
> 
> I'll have to stand alone or at least with minimal company on this one.  I personally would have no quibble with them being muzzled either by law, Hannibal Lecter attire or which ever works.  Any sorrows that may be visited upon them will bring no tears from me, only joy.  If you abuse your rights then you should lose them.




I stick with John Stuart Mill: *"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."* (I used that as a signature line here on Army.ca for a few years.)

The SOBs in Westboro Baptist are exercising (rather than abusing) a "freedom" we, mostly, regard, as important if not vital in a _liberal_ democracy. I'm happy enough to argue FOR a _conservative_ or _Confucian_ form of democracy in which e.g. "freedom of speech" and "freedom of assembly" might be heavily restricted (and at least one such exists), but I'm not sure most Army.ca members would want to live there.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (17 Dec 2012)

So when does it become abuse?


----------



## Scott (17 Dec 2012)

Meh. You had to know some asshole was going to do something to get attention over this. The solace I take from situations like these with deadbeats from WBC is that their personal info is being spread around the web like wildfire and they've probably had 30,000 pizzas ordered in their name.

Don't want that sort of shit happening to you? Don't make yourself a target.

I'm not condoning breaking the law, but I suuuuuuure like seeing the fallout this one time.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Dec 2012)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> So when does it become abuse?




When, for example, it incites someone to physical violence; as said earlier: neither you nor I nor even a grieving parent or spouse has any *right* to not be offended.


----------



## cupper (17 Dec 2012)

It is unfortunate that people like this understand that they have the right of free speech and exercise that right without understanding that they have a responsibility to exercise that right in a manner that respects other members of the community.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Dec 2012)

If I was a member of the WBC and I was planning on picketing the funerals of the shooting that just took place I'd be worried about parents who lost their only child.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Dec 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> It is unfortunate that people like this understand that they have the right of free speech and exercise that right without understanding that they have a responsibility to exercise that right in a manner that respects other members of the community.



 :nod:

+300 Milpoints inbound.

That's the nub of it: we have *rights* and the _liberal_ state is obliged to protect us when we exercise them; we also ought to have responsibilities ... but only we, as individuals, can exercise those.


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Dec 2012)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Yelling 'fire' endangers people in a stampede. Expressing vitriol does not physically endanger people...



Not totally true.  Vitriole, verbal harassment, verbal/emotional bullying...it is a slippery slope to say that verbal or physical intimidation/presence does not physically endanger people.  

Furthermore, does this imply that infliction of mental anguish on a person is socially acceptable?


Food for thought.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Dec 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> . You can grieve or mourn wherever you like, but if you choose to do so in public, in, say, a cemetery, then you must share the public space with people who will be unpleasant, to say the least. If free speech matters as much as many of us say it does then this, filthy, hateful, low speech must be protected.



Bullshit,........who says cemeteries are public spaces??


----------



## brihard (17 Dec 2012)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Not totally true.  Vitriole, verbal harassment, verbal/emotional bullying...it is a slippery slope to say that verbal or physical intimidation/presence does not physically endanger people.
> 
> Furthermore, does this imply that infliction of mental anguish on a person is socially acceptable?
> 
> ...



There is a difference between 'socially acceptable' and something so clearly harmful as to allow for the curtailment of basic expression. Trust me, this is far from the first instance where I've given this very deep thought. Well, we collectively were on the receiving end of it a few years back- remember Salman Hossain? Ultimately it wasn't his 'Canadian Soldiers should be fair game' comments that got him indicted, it was his advocating of genocide against Jews which specifically fell afoul of the criminal code.

The problem with any laws intended to curtail expression for perfectly laudible reasons is the issue of discrimination and the huge danger of 'collateral damage'. To legislate against a Charter right, law must pass the test developed in R. v. Oakes: 


> First, the measures adopted must be carefully designed to achieve the objective in question. They must not be arbitrary, unfair or based on irrational considerations. In short, they must be rationally connected to the objective. Second, the means, even if rationally connected to the objective in this first sense, should impair "as little as possible" the right or freedom in question. Third, there must be a proportionality between the effects of the measures which are responsible for limiting the Charter right or freedom, and the objective which has been identified as of "sufficient importance".



Free expression is arguably the most critical of our rights in order to protect all the others from legislative depredation. I'm very, very concerned about anything that threatens it, and accept limitations only in circumstances of the strictest necessity.


----------



## Sythen (17 Dec 2012)

I agree with ERC that freedom of speech must be protected at all costs. To quote Ezra Levant, when he was facing off against the CHRC, "Freedom is the foundation of all rights.   Take away all my rights except for freedom of speech, and I can win them all back." When something like what happened to Ken McElroy does take place, I won't shed a tear. I will never do something to restrict the freedom of speech of anyone, but nor will I protect those that use their right to attack others. Its a very slippery slope, and I agree that there is no one I would trust to decide what I can or cannot say. All I can say is sometimes justice doesn't require a written law.


----------



## Maxadia (17 Dec 2012)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Bullshit,........who says cemeteries are public spaces??



Sorry Bruce....who says that they aren't?  Certainly not the churches....they open their cemeteries to anyone who would like to visit.  The don't advertise them as private places.

(yes, I get your point...)


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Dec 2012)

This from the Supreme Court decision allowing Westboro to spread its vile message:


> .... Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, movethem to tears of both joy and sorrow, and—as it did here—inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate ....





			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Bullshit,........who says cemeteries are public spaces??


In some places, the state's Attorney General's office:


> In response to an inquiry made to the Office of the Tennessee Attorney General, county leaders have been informed that cemeteries are, indeed, considered to be “places of public gathering” ....


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Dec 2012)

Brihard said:
			
		

> ...Free expression is arguably the most critical of our rights in order to protect all the others from legislative depredation. I'm very, very concerned about anything that threatens it, and accept limitations only in circumstances of the strictest necessity.



Then I will respectfully argue against your assertion if you intend it as a social generality, vice a personal opinion.  I personally feel that due process and presumption of innocence are amongst the most critical of the vested rights and freedoms in our society, however, in a pure sense, there is no hierarchical prioritization of importance of any one right or freedom over another.

Furthermore, in a developed society, the exercising of an individual's rights, any individual, or as a group, should not come at the cost of those of another individual or group.  Balance must be sought, so why should an individual or a group have a priority to spread hateful or inciting material over another individual or group's right not to be subject to verbal harassment?

The fundamental nature of ethical issues is such that the ethos of society is based on the predominant beliefs and values of the day of that society.  It is cases where an individual's or a group's assertion is that their fundamental rights are not being upheld as they spread what is clearly to a society's ethical norms, unacceptable, that many, indeed one would believe the majority of citizens believe that it is totally reasonable that the checks and balances that the society has integrated into the establishment and codification of vested rights and freedoms (In the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is contained in Part I) allow for protection and respect of the masses rights as well.

Mr. Edwards, I too believe that Mr. Mills had much to contribute to the importance of liberal democracy, but I will not go as far as to believe that magically the rights for each and every person can be exercised without regard for other members of that society.

To benefit from a society's rights and freedoms DEMANDS a concomitant respect and appreciation by each member of society for the rights of OTHERS as well.  The rights and freedoms were enacted by the representatives of the members of that society, and so it is entirely consistent that the majority representation of that society ought reasonably to expect such respect from every member of the society benefitting from those rights.

 :2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Scott (17 Dec 2012)

I just tried calling some of the WBC hierarchy to express my disgust, freedom of speech and all, yeah? But the goddamned phone is always engaged! Maybe the hacktivists struck some gold releasing all of those phone numbers...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Dec 2012)

RDJP said:
			
		

> Sorry Bruce....who says that they aren't?  Certainly not the churches....they open their cemeteries to anyone who would like to visit.  The don't advertise them as private places.
> 
> (yes, I get your point...)




But that's my point,........someone owns them and if they decide that day to restrict their property then that would mute Edward's "grieving in public" theory.

I must also laugh very hard at all those folks getting so irritated over the "freedom of speech" thing,..........so I guess the first time you were told not to pass something on from an O-group you immediately quit the military or your place of employment at the time??

No??.....pretty freakin' hypocritical.


----------



## Maxadia (17 Dec 2012)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> But that's my point,........someone owns them and if they decide that day to restrict their property then that would mute Edward's "grieving in public" theory.



That could be a pretty good tactic....unless they decided to sue discrimination due to private only on the days they want to protest.


----------



## ModlrMike (17 Dec 2012)

RDJP said:
			
		

> That could be a pretty good tactic....unless they decided to sue discrimination due to private only on the days they want to protest.



No, they could be designated closed to the public during the act of interment, regardless of the social status of the deceased. Such a distinction would of course have them closed to the public on most days.


----------



## cupper (17 Dec 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> :nod:
> 
> +300 Milpoints inbound.
> 
> That's the nub of it: we have *rights* and the _liberal_ state is obliged to protect us when we exercise them; we also ought to have responsibilities ... but only we, as individuals, can exercise those.



I thank you sir!


----------



## Maxadia (18 Dec 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> No, they could be designated closed to the public during the act of interment, regardless of the social status of the deceased. Such a distinction would of course have them closed to the public on most days.




Thought about that too. It would effectively make funerals an invite-only event.


----------



## cupper (27 Dec 2012)

*White House petitions hit Westboro church*

http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/westboro-church-white-house-petition-85519.html?hp=r3



> More than 260,000 people have signed a petition to the White House asking for it to label the notorious Westboro Baptist Church a hate group.
> 
> The petition aimed at the church best known for picketing military funerals and other events with signs declaring “GOD HATES FAGS” is believed to be the most popular cause ever on the White House’s “We the People” petition site. Four other petitions targeting the church’s tax-exempt status have attracted nearly 200,000 additional signatures. All five petitions have passed the number required for a response from President Barack Obama’s administration.
> 
> ...



And the link to the petition on the White House site:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/legally-recognize-westboro-baptist-church-hate-group/DYf3pH2d


----------



## dapaterson (7 Feb 2013)

Damsel, Arise: A Westboro Scion Leaves Her Church

https://medium.com/reporters-notebook/d63ecca43e35


----------



## cupper (19 Mar 2013)

Some might say God has a sense of humour, or Karma is a bitch. I say Rock On Dude!

*House Across From Westboro Baptist Is Painted With Gay Pride Rainbow Colors*

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/03/19/174737257/house-across-westboro-baptist-is-painted-with-gay-pride-rainbow?utm_source=NPR&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=20130319



> Aaron Jackson took inspiration from a 9-year-old kid who stood up to Westboro Baptist Church protesters.
> 
> As Mark wrote last year, Josef Miles stood in front of protesters carrying signs that read "God Hates [Gays]" with his own sign that read "God Hates No One."
> 
> ...


----------



## PMedMoe (18 Jul 2013)

Wasn't sure whether to post here, or in a humour thread....

Highway to Hell?

The Satanic Temple in the U.S. is launching a campaign to clean up New York's highways to "promote a message of Satanic civic pride and social responsibility." 

....  :blah: ....

To drum up awareness for the campaign, the church performed a "pink mass" on Sunday over the grave of Westboro Baptist Church founder Fred Phelps Jr.'s mother.

The ritual, which involves chants and gay makeouts over the grave, aims to make deceased's spirit turn homosexual. 

More at link

See?  Satanists aren't _all_ bad.....    >

 ;D


----------



## cupper (18 Jul 2013)

Karma is a bitch.


----------



## PMedMoe (19 Jul 2013)

Ummm, why is this in US Military?   ???

Guess I should have noticed that before, but I just went with search results without even looking at the subforum.


----------



## Haggis (19 Jul 2013)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Ummm, why is this in US Military?   ???



Because the WBC makes a practise of "victimizing" the families of fallen US service members.


----------



## PMedMoe (19 Jul 2013)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Because the WBC makes a practise of "victimizing" the families of fallen US service members.



Fair enough.


----------



## cupper (16 Mar 2014)

It appears that the truth may finally be revealed to Rev. Phelps in due course.

That is going to be one interesting conversation.

*Fred Phelps, Westboro Baptist Church Founder, Is 'On The Edge Of Death'*

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/16/fred-phelps-dying-death-westboro-baptist_n_4974584.html



> Fred Phelps, the founder of the highly controversial Westboro Baptist Church, which is known for protesting high-profile funerals with signs that read "God Hates Fags," is said to be dying at a hospice center in Kansas.
> 
> The news comes via Nate Phelps, one of Fred's estranged children, who wrote this in a Facebook post Saturday night.
> 
> ...


----------



## jollyjacktar (17 Mar 2014)

Good riddance when he's gone, I say.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Mar 2014)

Evil always turns on itself in the end.


----------



## vonGarvin (17 Mar 2014)

I note the irony of welcoming the death of a person who was greatly disliked for welcoming the deaths of people he greatly disliked.


----------



## The_Falcon (17 Mar 2014)

I just wonder if people are going to protest at his funeral, and what the fami....er cult will have to say about it.


----------



## vonGarvin (17 Mar 2014)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> I just wonder if people are going to protest at his funeral, and what the fami....er cult will have to say about it.


Duffelblog or Onion had an article about Westboro Baptist protesting at his funeral :nod:


----------



## tomahawk6 (17 Mar 2014)

He will have to account for his actions to his maker,just as we all will when our time comes.


----------



## x_para76 (17 Mar 2014)

One thing I found interesting about Fred Phelps was that he was a big proponent for the African American civil rights movement. So apparently he only hated some people.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Mar 2014)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I note the irony of welcoming the death of a person who was greatly disliked for welcoming the deaths of people he greatly disliked.



Or an atheist praying for his death  ;D


----------



## TCBF (17 Mar 2014)

3rd Herd said:
			
		

> ...
> Grade 11 Canadian Law to start in 1 hour room 109.
> 
> ...



- Am I late? Should I have brought a note?

 ;D


----------



## Kat Stevens (17 Mar 2014)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I note the irony of welcoming the death of a person who was greatly disliked for welcoming the deaths of people he greatly disliked.



Irony, far out.  I'm okay with it.


----------



## cupper (17 Mar 2014)

Maybe Alanis Morisette could write a song about it. ;D


----------



## vonGarvin (18 Mar 2014)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Irony, far out.  I'm okay with it.


I'm not.  I have no love lost for this guy, but I'm not going to stoop to his level and wish him a slow, painful death.  Nor would I protest his funeral, or whatever.  Instead, I'd rather see him fade away into obscurity.


----------



## Haggis (18 Mar 2014)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Instead, I'd rather see him fade away into obscurity.



I'm quite sure that your wish will come true, sooner rather than later.


----------



## CougarKing (30 Nov 2014)

"What goes around comes around... "



> *Westboro Baptist Church Gets Punked With Thanksgiving Avian Flu Turkey Prank*
> 
> The vehemently anti-***** group, which infamously protests the funerals of American soldiers and the concerts of super stars like Cher because it believes those events promote pro-***** sentiment, found itself the butt of a Thanksgiving prank.
> 
> ...


----------



## mariomike (19 Jun 2016)

17 June 2016

Westboro Baptist Church to protest funerals of Orlando shooting victims
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/orlando-westboro-baptist-church-protest-funerals-nightclub-shooting-a7088406.html
The infamous Westboro Baptist Church announced plans to demonstrate outside of an Orlando church while funerals for two victims of the Pulse nightclub shootings are underway.


----------



## AbdullahD (19 Jun 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> 17 June 2016
> 
> Westboro Baptist Church to protest funerals of Orlando shooting victims
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/orlando-westboro-baptist-church-protest-funerals-nightclub-shooting-a7088406.html
> The infamous Westboro Baptist Church announced plans to demonstrate outside of an Orlando church while funerals for two victims of the Pulse nightclub shootings are underway.



What a bunch of *****, I won't wish bad on them. I'll wish they grow up and realize what they have done and are doing.

On the day of judgement these chaps are going to have a rough time it looks like.


----------



## cupper (19 Jun 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> 17 June 2016
> 
> Westboro Baptist Church to protest funerals of Orlando shooting victims
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/orlando-westboro-baptist-church-protest-funerals-nightclub-shooting-a7088406.html
> The infamous Westboro Baptist Church announced plans to demonstrate outside of an Orlando church while funerals for two victims of the Pulse nightclub shootings are underway.



In response, several groups came together to ensure that they did not disrupt the funerals.

Photos and Video at the link.

*'Angels' blocked anti-gay protesters from Orlando shooting victim's burial*

https://news.vice.com/article/angels-blocked-anti-gay-protesters-from-orlando-shooting-victims-burial



> Funerals for two of the 49 Orlando massacre victims took place amid anti-gay protesters and an impatient driver who cut through a funeral procession, injuring two deputies.
> 
> The four anti-gay protesters were from the homophobic Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church. They raised signs with anti-gay slogans outside the Cathedral Church of St. Luke, where services took place for Christopher Leinonen, who was one of those killed in the attack on the Pulse nightclub in Orlando.
> 
> ...


----------

