|
1 year ago ::
Apr 01, 2011 - 2:39PM
#65
|
|
|
This thread was moved from the Hot Topics Zone.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 24, 2011 - 7:21PM
#64
|
|
|
I think probably the correct response to the Westboro church is to pray for them. If you are not into praying then maybe sending some kind of hope for change, good vibe. Probably all of you have seen the interviews of the Phelps children who have left which is heart breaking. I just really feel like the people in that church (not Mr. Phelps so much), the adult children, the minor children and the assorted malcontents that were attracted to the church for their own strange reasons are trapped people, stuck and they don't know how to get out. Fred I think gets off on being hated by the world and being king of his own little world really all he cares about. The rest of the people have been in effect turned into horrible monsters who are hated by society. How do you reach out to a society that finds you repugnant? How do you even think of a way to make another life. How trapped and stuck they must feel. It is like the Westboro congregants have been crippled and disfigured by the focus of the church and now they have no place in society. In reality they could leave and might make alot more money working the talk show circut than they ever did protesting funerals but I am not so sure it is easy to make that connection. In my own way I feel sorry for some of the Westboro congregants interviewed and can sense how alone and shunned they must feel. I am not saying we need to tolerate their behavior and I still can't fathom how what they do is legal but our attention might be best served in sending them hope for change and enlightenment.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 23, 2011 - 10:22PM
#63
|
|
|
True. I just hate that there's not more protection for people in what I consider vulnerable categories...children, elderly, and grieving parents would be good examples. Hell, I don't care if Phelps spews his nonsense all over town, but preying on grieving parents...wow.
Maybe that is what we are here for...
I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize what you heard was not what I meant...
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 23, 2011 - 7:26PM
#62
|
|
|
Y,
Yes, but technically legal and morally right are not the same thing.
Killing someone just for where their foot lands seems pretty harsh. Heck, it sounds to me kind of akin to killing someone just because of who they love.
I wasn't advocating any position. Merely commenting on the technical aspects.
The dwarves of yore made mighty spells,
While hammers fell like ringing bells
In places deep, where dark things sleep,
In hollow halls beneath the fells.
For ancient king and elvish lord
There many a gloaming golden hoard
They shaped and wrought, and light they caught
To hide in gems on hilt of sword. - J.R.R. Tolkien
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 23, 2011 - 4:48PM
#61
|
|
|
It may not be illegal, but immoral is a whole different story.
I see trying to stifle their free speech as imoral. Free speech is one of the foundations this country was founded on. Trying in any way to limit free speech is un-American.
Would you feel it was immoral if these were abortion protesters yelling profanities and holding up disgusting pictures and signs saying 'baby killer'?
I have spent many hours as an escort at womens health clinics helping to get women through lines of such jerks. Not once did we try to impede their right to free speech.
Pushing the limits with the intention of hurting others is immoral.
No, it is the law - a law supported by our Constitution and by many different Supreme Court decisions. A persons right to free speech cannot be taken away just because someone gets emotional about it. THAT is immoral and un-American.
Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.
I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 23, 2011 - 4:46PM
#60
|
|
|
Y, Yes, but technically legal and morally right are not the same thing. Killing someone just for where their foot lands seems pretty harsh. Heck, it sounds to me kind of akin to killing someone just because of who they love.
Democrats think the glass is half full.
Republicans think the glass is theirs.
Libertarians want to break the glass, because they think a conspiracy created it.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 23, 2011 - 4:42PM
#59
|
|
|
And, with all due respect, there is no law that you may murder a person for something they say, even "in your front yard." I'll stick with my statement.
Actually, in some states, it's not unheard of to get away with shooting someone for trespassing. Not that I personally agree with it, but it's not unheard of for someone to do so without punishment.
Basic NRA urban legend there. Neither legal nor right.
Wrong. As long as you can establish that you felt your life was threatened in certain states, you may shoot someone. These laws vary greatly from state to state.
The threat must be imminent in nature.
A threat isn’t automatically imminent (one could simply threaten to harm you IF you move or cry out).
And, the force used to defend self against the imminent threat must be believed to be reasonable in kind.
Killing someone for being on one's land isn't of itself a justifiable defense. However, if trespasser has loaded weapon pointed at you-'nother story.
Irene.
Again, it depends on the state.
The dwarves of yore made mighty spells,
While hammers fell like ringing bells
In places deep, where dark things sleep,
In hollow halls beneath the fells.
For ancient king and elvish lord
There many a gloaming golden hoard
They shaped and wrought, and light they caught
To hide in gems on hilt of sword. - J.R.R. Tolkien
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 23, 2011 - 3:47PM
#58
|
|
|
As others have said, the Phelpses check carefully to see what the ordinances stipulate for each location where they plan to protest a funeral, and they observe them faithfully. Not stupid they aren't when it comes to keeping just the safe side of the law. Yes, what they say and what their horrid signs say are offensive indeed, but giving offense has never been a violation of the law unless it creeps over into being an evident threat or obvious and deliberate falsehood with proof possible that the perpetrator knew the statement to be false. That's how comedian Carol Burnett won a tidy sum against the National Enquirer some years ago for its story that she was staggering drunk in public and an embarrassment when Burnett absolutely does not drink and is well known for that fact due to both her parents having been acute alcoholics.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 23, 2011 - 2:51PM
#57
|
|
|
The question NO ONE is addressing is, why aren't Phelps' actions considered either harassment or assault? It certainly looks like stalking and harassment to me. Aren't THOSE illegal?
I don't believe that was the question before the court. I would wonder about libel or slander, too.
I am not sure about other states, but here for a case to be considered stalking there needs to be three separate reports. Three different funerals would be one action each time.
Although one may press charges of disturbing their peace, but if these haters stay far enough away then that could not be applied either.
Beliefnet Community Moderator ~ Peace Love Stardove It is no longer good enough to cry peace, we must act peace, live peace, and live in peace. -Shenandoah proverb 
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 23, 2011 - 2:30PM
#56
|
|
|
Do, Disgusting as they are, the Phelps clan are also mostly lawyers. They are scrupulously careful about legalities. Kings and Queens (no pun intended) of loopholes they.
Democrats think the glass is half full.
Republicans think the glass is theirs.
Libertarians want to break the glass, because they think a conspiracy created it.
|
|
|
