Difference between revisions of "Talk:Westboro Baptist Church"

Revision as of 22:57, July 22, 2012

!

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Religion-related articles on Conservapedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

I don't think that the Westboro Baptist Church qualifies as a liberal activist group especially since they oppose evolution, abortion, and the homosexual agenda, three things that liberals push for heavily. --Konservativekanadian 12:37, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Phelps wouldn't be that bad if he only protesting homosexuality, its his disrespect of American troops that makes me mad. --Konservativekanadian 12:38, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Of course the WBC isn't a liberal group. They are living proof that anything, even religious conservatism, can be taken to the most extreme, and out of its original context. Bruce1 21:19, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

So why are they still called liberal activists and why is the page locked? Alexjohnc3 11:56, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Of course they're liberal. They hate America. They say "God Hates America". Who cares if they also say that God hates fags? Who cares if they're also doing God's work by picketing fag churches? Hatred of America is liberal, period. The admins were right to lock the page. You seem to forget that children are reading this site, and they might be confused if we give then too much conflicting information. MissAmerica 11:00, 24 November 2007 (EST)

Osama bin Laden also hates America. Does that make him liberal? Do you even know what liberal means?

This is an encylopedia, remember? liberal NewCrusader 14:58, 12 November 2008 (EST)

--Incide 19:12, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Possibly; bin Laden leads a national liberation movement against Western oppression, imperialism, and the Church. Rob Smith 16:12, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Are you a parodist? This is a second prime example of it at any rate. I've studied Fred Phelps in great detail sir - no other conclusion can be brought out of this article other than that you are writing parody articles. ModerateCatholic 16:52, 14 December 2007 (EST)

• I've studied Fred Phelps in great detail sir ...

• I see. Hmmm. I do not doubt you, sir, for an instant. Now, why are you directing personal comments at me, then, and not discussing the issue? Rob Smith 17:45, 14 December 2007 (EST)

You may have studied his inflammatory comments or read an anti-Christian slanted expose or three, but you haven't pointed out a single specific inaccuracy in the article. DanH 17:48, 14 December 2007 (EST)

bin Laden leads a national liberation movement against Western oppression, imperialism, and the Church.

I was responding to that (He is implying that Phelps is a Liberal there, and in the Phelps article he is called a 'Leftist Liberal Democrat'. Doesn't take a genius to work out that that is plain false. ModerateCatholic 20:07, 14 December 2007 (EST)

It's not false, how could it be? I mean it says "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" and it has an AMERICAN flag right there at the top-left hand side of the page. Are you anti-America or something?! (Just kidding, by the way. I know that sometimes you can't tell if these type of people are kidding or not so I thought I should note that.) Alexjohnc3 18:29, 15 December 2007 (EST)

I'm conservative but even I can admit that this group is neither liberal nor conservative. It is just simply a hate group --StephenHarper 20:33, 16 December 2007 (EST)

Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church are not liberal by any stretch of the imagination. --Richardhead 17:40, 20 December 2007 (EST)

I took out the part that it is a liberal group because there is absolutly no basis for that argument at all. Please tell me if there is. Thanks. Rocky

PS. I also added in some parody groups of this hate group. Rocky

Folks,

I know there are likely going to be some who will immediately want to revert Rocky's changes, but I respectfully suggest that there might be some merit here. If Conservapedia wants to grow and become generally accepted, it needs to build a solid foundation. Lumping someone like Phelps in with tree-huggers and misguided college students serves no real useful purpose, and provides ammunition for those who claim that conservatives use "liberal" to mean "Anyone we dislike."

That being said, facts are facts. Phelps is/was a Democrat; that is a matter of record, as is his support for Gore; those things cannot be disputed or spun, and certainly merit coverage.

On the other hand, the parody groups don't seem significant, and I don't see why they should be covered. I'll let veteran editors have first crack before I make any changes.

--Benp 18:03, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

I just added in the parody groups simply to show people that these people are not that tough. If you don't make fun of someone, they will allways find a way to justify their hate. However, if you make fun of them, they will have no defense because they will look like idiots. However, I apprechiate the fact that you stuck up for my edits. Thank you. --Rocky

Fred Phelps

Why was the tie-in to Fred Phelps removed? Learn together 05:01, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

It was removed because I could not find any sources. If you can find some, you can put it back in. --Rocky

Rocky please use any search engine with 'Fred Phelps, Westboro Baptist Church'. It's not exactly hidden. Learn together 13:11, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Motto

I don't restore the motto because I like it, but rather because we conservatives need to show that it is homosexual practices we hate, not homosexual people. God loves the sinner, but hates the sin. --Ed Poor ^Talk 15:01, 12 November 2008 (EST)

I don't know how the offending word is understood by Americans, but personally I don't have a problem with quoting it. But I can't see your point that having it there shows how God loves the sinner and hates the sin. And you haven't addressed NewCrusader's reason for deleting it. Philip J. Rayment 00:18, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Please help me explain how WBC's hatred of homosexuals contrasts with the standard Christian ethic which directs us to love all people (even if they sin) while at the same time condemning the sins those same people commit. You might express it in terms of justice and injustice. Is it the Bible or Shakespeare who said God sends rain and sunshine on both the just and the unjust? --Ed Poor ^Talk 11:40, 13 November 2008 (EST)

That's the Bible.

The real difference Between WBC's view and Christianity as defined in the Bible is that God hate all sin, not just Homosexuality. They have taken this one issue and made a doctrine out of it. The Bible says that you will go to hell for any sin if you don't repent, not just the "really bad ones" like homosexuality. --Chris

Photo

Why does this page have a photo of Fred Phelps with Al Gore? In all likelihood, the photo was taken during Phelps' earlier career as a civil-rights attorney. It's incredibly unlikely that Gore would willingly align with a group such as this one- after all, doing so would be an act of career-suicide. --KaseyF

Irony

You know what's funny? (and sad) The same fallacious, idiotic, progressive thinking behind abortion is at work allowing Westboro to do what it does. That people should be able to do whatever they feel like and their freedoms allow them to harm others. That sort of progressive "openmindedness" was behind the Supreme Court's decision that Westboro should get to go to funerals and emotionally assault the deceased's loved ones. That they should get to spread their vitriol into the public sphere. It's the same concept as abortion. That people should get to do whatever they want with their bodies (whether their wombs or the bodies holding their protest signs) no matter who else get hurts. This doctrine of "do what feels right no matter who else's rights you abuse" is patently stupid when you look at it frankly. The abortion rights movement says you should be able to kill whatever children you want. Westboro says you should be able to emotionally abuse whoever you want with words and signs. This kind of openmindedness goes beyond common sense.

True common sense is that your rights are in fact privileges and do NOT include the right to harm others. Your right to throw a punch should stop where another's nose begins. You should not have the right to yell fire in a crowded theatre, to slander others, to yell profanities in public near children. You don't have a right to harm others in the privacy of your own home or your own body. You don't get to use your body to punch or assault people, whether with a fist or your words. If you want to use your body in private that's one thing but when you use it in the public sphere inappropriately where others are negatively affected, that's gone too far, because your freedoms are now being used to infringe on the freedoms of others. Freedoms in private are not the same as in public, or they shouldn't be. People should be able to figure this out. Common sense. --Jzyehoshua 08:29, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

I don't agree with any of that. For a start I think its people committed to free speech that let it happen, not liberals, not conservatives; just people who happen to believe that freedom of speech is something worth preserving. Also, I happen to agree that if people want to go around protesting their beliefs they should be allowed to do it, no matter how distasteful it may be to me or you or anyone else. For mine, the only thing that is too far is if they were to actively entice violence because then it moves from speech to action. Westboro people have been very careful not to cross this line. If you wanna live in a free country you have to take the good with the bad. Gotta take your lumps. --DamianJohn 08:43, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

Disagreed. People can have free speech to protest but there are logical limits that shouldn't extend to, and that includes funerals. A famous judge once declared that the right to freedom of speech does not include the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre and I'm inclined to agree. Freedom to speech should not mean freedom to say whatever we want, it should not be unlimited, and should have reasonable limits, namely those where other's rights are infringed upon. And logically, going to funerals and protesting harms the families of the deceased. It harms public decency sensibility, as much as yelling profanities in public before a small child. Both should be wrong. Protecting freedom of speech should not include protecting the right to harm others with that speech. --Jzyehoshua 08:58, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

It's ironic that people think a right to privacy should include the right to kill one's children in the womb past the 21-week period where children have been born prematurely and lived, but not to be left undisturbed from funeral protesters. Protesting a funeral is extremely offensive and inherently indefensible. It's an invasion of privacy as much as bursting into a home. There are cases where commonsense dictates a right has gone too far and will necessarily be used for evil, and protesting at funerals is one such case. --Jzyehoshua 09:04, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

See, at some point, you have to draw a line where speech is wrong, or allow evil possibly as great as if there was no free speech at all. Both extremes are wrong, too much free speech unrestricted, and no free speech at all. Would you say the following should be permitted without restriction under the concept of free speech?

• Slander.
• False Advertising.
• Yelling fire in a theater when there's not so people stampede and get killed.
• Imitating someone a person cares about and telling them to commit suicide.[1]
• Shouting profanities at little children in public.
• Telling trade secrets to another company in exchange for compensation.
• Talking with terrorists about how to plot an attack on innocent people.
• Telling U.S. secrets to another country.

Do you see what I mean? These are all examples of "free speech" but speech most people could agree shouldn't be allowed as legal. Somewhere you've got to draw a line. You can say people have a right to their own bodies too, but obviously this shouldn't include the right to expose themselves in public, physically assault others, kill others in the privacy of their homes or wombs, etc.

My point is that there's an underlying truth behind all of this that shows where the line is for such freedoms, and where it is crossed. Once your rights go from affecting just yourself to affecting others, they may be going too far. Once your rights start infringing on the rights of others, it's time to reconsider them. That's why abortion is wrong. The right to one's body and privacy infringes on the right to life of another person. That's why free speech can be wrong - it infringes on the rights to privacy and the pursuit of happiness of other people. Likewise with guns - you have a right to use them yourself, but not to harm others without cause, infringing on their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It's just common sense. The personal rights of a person should not infringe on the inalienable rights of another person. Otherwise it's time to talk about revoking them. And I argue that protesting at a funeral infringes on the rights to privacy and pursuit of happiness of other people. That the Supreme Court couldn't understand this vital distinction speaks very poorly for them. Our country is in a sad state of affairs when its judges don't have commonsense to discern between good and evil. --Jzyehoshua 17:03, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

A famous judge once declared that the right to freedom of speech does not include the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre and I'm inclined to agree.

Whenever I am involved in a discussion about free speech and someone quotes that line I always ask the person if he or she knows what the case was about, what was the reasoning behind the decision was, and whether that person agrees with the decision. I think that is one of the most appalling decisions ever laid down by a superior court and I think a lot of people quote bits of it without actually having read it. I suggest you have a read of the judgment before you quote it because I am pretty sure you would disagree with it once you do.

As for the examples you give, Westboro perform no action that is analogous. The hold protests and express their religious convictions, but as far as I am aware they never cross the line from speech to action. --DamianJohn 17:54, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

Speech is an action that can be used to harm others, as seen from the examples I gave of slander, false advertising, giving away trade secrets, telling others to commit suicide, etc. Their speech crosses the line because it impacts the rights of others to privacy and pursuit of happiness. You have a right to protest, but not to stalk someone else's funeral and protest there. There are some circumstances just blatantly inappropriate and protesting a funeral is an obvious one. There's a difference between preaching something is wrong in church and going to somebody's funeral and boasting that they are dead.

Once speech is used to infringe on another's rights, something has to give. Inalienable rights can only be inalienable for all if they are not always rights, but privileges to be revoked once those rights are used to harm the rights of others. To use a famous cliche, "Your right to throw a punch stops where another's nose begins." Your right to your own body or own speech should not include the right to harm another's right to their body, speech, privacy, life, and pursuit of happiness. If you're using your rights to harm others, one side or the other has to lose their rights.

That's why someone who uses their right to privacy and their body to murder someone in the privacy of their home can be placed in prison and lose the rights to their privacy and body. That's why someone who abuses freedom of the press by slander can have their freedom of speech removed and be barred from the press. Your rights cannot harm others or they are not being allowed to have rights as well. Freedoms are merely privileges that go only so far as another person's freedoms. Westboro is inappropriately using their freedoms to attack others, both with words and in court, to abuse the system and deliberately harm others. They need to be stopped and shut down. Their rights are going too far and harming those of everybody else, as well as our very nation. --Jzyehoshua 18:12, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

I guess we are never going to agree on this. I would say to your comment "There's a difference between preaching something is wrong in church and going to somebody's funeral and boasting that they are dead." that I don't think there is any difference. I say this with the one proviso that the speech should not be inciting violence against anyone because that then becomes an action punishable because it serves to reduce someone elses right to non violence. One does not have the right to not have people say things that are hurtful or that they disagree with. --DamianJohn 18:19, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

It's frankly not their funerals, so why should they have a right to protest it? Funerals should not be considered public events, but private ones, and protests of them at or near the locations in public as violation of privacy. It causes emotional distress to the families of those who died. I guess that's a big distinction for me. Protesting at a public courthouse or other area should not be the same as protesting at a funeral. I suppose it "might" be more understandable if it was a funeral of someone related to you, because then at least there would be explanation for why you're involved. But picketing at random people's funerals is absurd and offensive and abusive of the freedom to speech. I'd support Westboro and all related members having all right to picket and protest removed because of that abuse. --Jzyehoshua 18:25, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

I also think double damages should be given to all the people and communities sued by Westboro, too. Westboro's been using this faulty legal understanding to reap monetary damages as surely as any thief. I say we should abide by the 1682 Province of Pennsylvania statute, that any people wrongfully accused are to have double damages against their accusers.[2] --Jzyehoshua 18:28, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

The problem you have is that neither the courts, nor a majority of the US public agree with you. The Supreme Court has said that people are allowed to protest funerals if they like (in an 8-1 decision) and 70% of people said in a poll that free speech should be unfettered, even when the comments are deeply offensive. [3] I will not debate this further because I can see there is no hope of convincing you, but you should be aware that people of all political stripes have considered the issue and believe they are not doing anything that should be legally punished. --DamianJohn 18:40, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

From what I can tell, there's never been a poll asking whether it's alright to protest at funerals. Do you have a source for one? The poll you cited only showed that people support offensive free speech, not the right to protest at funerals. I think I will contact Gallup and see if they can run a poll on this because we really need one. I can't tell what American opinion on it would be. --Jzyehoshua 18:48, 22 July 2012 (EDT)--Jzyehoshua 18:48, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

Offensive free speech could be considered to mean simply preaching against homosexuality in church, and of course should be permissible. That's an entirely different thing from protesting at funerals. Here are some polls that actually address that subject:

Question: Should protests be allowed at military funerals?[4] Response: 9.64% Yes, 90.36% No

Question: Should military funeral protesters be protected under the First Amendment?[5] Response: 9% Yes, 89% No

Both polls agree that roughly 90% of Americans recognize protesting at funerals should NOT be considered a 1st amendment right. Unfortunately, Supreme Court justices lack the common sense of 90% of Americans. --Jzyehoshua 18:54, 22 July 2012 (EDT)