Difference between revisions of "Talk:Fred Phelps"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Phelps is PRO-FAMILY, not anti-homosexual)
Line 89: Line 89:
Phelps is not pro-family, he's pro-hate. There's a difference. His websites are not family-friendly, his sermons are not, nor are his "hymns", and neither are his images. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]<sup>([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])</sup> 11:54, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Phelps is not pro-family, he's pro-hate. There's a difference. His websites are not family-friendly, his sermons are not, nor are his "hymns", and neither are his images. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]<sup>([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])</sup> 11:54, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
What does Phelps stand for, _besides_ hating gays?  That seems to be his one schtick. And by all accounts, he psychologically and physically abused his OWN family, which doesn't sound too 'pro-family' to me.  [http://blank.org/addict/] (Court evidence--not for the weak of stomach.)  --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 07:56, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
== What the #$@% ==
== What the #$@% ==

Revision as of 06:56, 21 May 2007

No linking to Phelps's web sites

They are not family appropriate, and Conservapedia is not a repository of hate speech. MountainDew 17:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Would it be reasonable to add the prohibition of making and linking to hate speech one of the commandments? --Mtur 17:21, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
I think that's an excellent idea. I suggest bringing it up either on Aschlafly's Talk Page or Talk:Conservapedia Commandments. MountainDew 17:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
I did not know that I shouldn't have linked to his websites. However, could you please put into the opening paragraph that Fred Phelps' mission is against homosexuality? As it is, this important fact is not mentioned until halfway down the page. CEinhorn 19:33, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Will do. In fact, I'm going to unprotect this. MountainDew 22:55, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Surely the main authority on Phelps's teachings in Phelps himself? His sites should be linked to. I suggest doing so as plain text, not a clickable link, and alongside a warning notice.

  • Posts not signed are ignored. --~ TerryK MyTalk 01:02, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Discussion of subject

I'm going to tentatively leave this in place, although it was intended to make Christians look bad by the original creator, he is a major news figure because of his funeral protests, and his actions have prompted major legislation regarding these (and he is also a major embarrassment to my home state, as well as a DEMOCRAT who actually campaigned for Al Gore in 1988 before he went on his anti-homosexual crusade).

Also, I drove by his "church" once and I got a physical chill once I got within two blocks of it. I felt like I was in a place of true evil. Interestingly, the ZIP codes in Topeka, where he lives, all start with 666. MountainDew 03:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I just moved it because it was under "Fred phelps," and the lack of proper capitalization was bothering me. I like to copy edit. :-p ColinR 03:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

If you looked at the original article as it was written, it contained some crude language. But thanks for working on the capitalization. It bothers me as well when articles are started like that. MountainDew 03:30, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with you completely. I didn't want to bother with the article at the time, and I'm glad someone else did. ColinR 03:32, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

On a more humorous note, this was taken outside of Vandy when Phelps came to visit. ColinR 03:52, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I saw that picture for sale in a liberal store downtown once. It's so funny. One of Phelps's lackeys told my friend that his hair was too long once. (I live about 25 miles from Topeka, so we get a lot of him.) MountainDew 03:51, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

But everyone knows, Jesus doesn't like long hair... ColinR 03:52, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
This man makes me question the First Amendment, he is just that much of a evil being.--Elamdri 03:54, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I know. His speech is beyond reasonable and just disgusting. I would guess that a majority of Kansans would support his execution. And Colin, you may be thinking of Paul :) MountainDew 03:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I know the feeling. I'm a huge believer in the importance of the First Amendment, especially free speech, but what he says is just so ridiculous it's hard to believe it's technically allowed. And MD, I was mostly referring to the fact that most men of Jesus' time had "longer" hair. ColinR 04:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

That's what I thought. I don't like to judge other Christians' salvation, but I have to make an exception here for old Freddie. MountainDew 04:05, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

OK, I saw you reverted the article back after I added content about the extent of his hate speach. There needs away for this to be stated, especially if you are going to allow the b.s. about militant homosexuals on the page. Otherwise this article makes him come across as less insane than he is.--Jack 18:04, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
I agree. I just don't think that the word "fag" is appropriate for an article on this site. MountainDew 20:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
The hate crimes against Fred Phelps section is uncited b.s. and I think it should be deleted unless someone can give any evidence beyond Phelps' own paranoia and delusional rantings. I'm doing you a favor--Fred Phelps is not your friend. --Jack 11:02, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm also taking out the Al Gore contributions part since that isn't cited either. --Jack 11:04, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Liberal Edits by Jack

please push your liberal views in an article about yourself. This article is about Fred Phelps views, not yours. RightWolf2 13:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Ummmm, liberal views? You say that as if it was a bad thing. One of the commandments here is that claims need to be properly sourced. This article is certainly making a lot of excuses regarding one of the most abhorrant men in America today. He goes to military funerals with signs that say "God Hates F*gs". That is an objective, well documented fact. However, the sysops delete it from the main page. However, completely unsubstantiated claims by Phelps that HE is the victim of hate crimes is allowed to be left up. --Jack 22:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
The subject of an article and their public statements are reliable sources for an article. Phelps is preaching the literal statements of the Bible. In fact, he is at the most extreme end of the spectrum with the limits of free speech I have ever seen. The article is about his views and him. And he is certainly notable. RightWolf2 22:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
RightWolf2, please stop editing the article to claim that Phelps is "literally following the Bible", and please stop attacking Jack. MountainDew 02:36, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
1. Not an attack, but a statement of my views. 2. When admins and their buddies start forming cabals to reinforce each other, free editing goes out the window. 3. I am over 60 years old, I am a competent attorney, and I am not here to rain on anyones parade. Just to add God's word. 4. Your views of Phelps are "your views". Articles about subjects as controversial as phelps should enshrine "his views", not everyone elses opinions. RightWolf2 11:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Landover Baptist

Is Fred Phelps' church the inspiration for the Landover Baptist Church website that mocks Christian Extremism?--Elamdri 15:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes. MountainDew 17:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)


"Phelps, although outspoken and outlandish, is far less of a hypocrite than other Christian organizations who claim to be able to determine which verses from the Bible are literal from those that are allegorical."

Wow. QED. Tmtoulouse 02:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

With all respect to the fact that it shouldn't be stated on an encyclopedia, Phelps probably is going to Hell. -AmesGyo! 00:42, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Phelps is PRO-FAMILY, not anti-homosexual

There's a reason Dr. Dobson called his institution "Focus on the Family" and not "We Hate Gays". There's a reason that it's called the "Family Research Council". The people who oppose the homosexual agenda are PRO-FAMILY, not anti-anything. Even the mainstream media generally recognizes this fact and ignore the moonbats (just like they ignore the moonbats when the moonbats try to label "PRO-lifers" as "ANTI-choicers"). Even the mainstream media (which has been proven to be overwhelmingly liberal, remember) doesn't call Dr. Dobson a bigot or a homophobe. So why shouldn't Conservapedia, which was created to espouse the CONSERVATIVE point of view, reflect what even liberals acknowledge?--Ashens 02:38, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Phelps isn't a true conservative. He says Bush is going to burn in hell. MountainDew 02:39, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Jeeze, conservatives aren't brainless clones who can't disagree! I strongly disagree with Phelps on this matter, but that doesn't make him a non-conservative! Besides, the issue isn't whether or not he's conservative, the issue is his PRO-FAMILY "bias"!--Ashens 02:46, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
  • My reading of scripture, perhaps not as advanced as some, tells me if we keep judging, which God has said is his alone to do, we will all be burning. --~ TerryK MyTalk 04:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
I agree with Terry, but as I've learned from much debating with christians, the argument doesn't work. They've chosen to ignore one thing the bible says in order to use another thing the bible says to achieve their goals or to justify their hate.NSmyth 04:47, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Well, really, in the Grand Scheme of things, it isn't important. All of us, eventually, will face the harshest, yet most loving Judge in the Universe. Justifications, and legal arguments won't be allowed, lol. ;-) --~ TerryK MyTalk 04:50, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
You can be anti homosexual without being pro-family. The cult Phelps has developed targets and belittles families, he is truely a Bad person in every sense of the word, if he has gotten anything right it has been by way of accident Opcn 01:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Being anti-homosexual is not being pro-family. It is being pro-YOUR-idea-of-family, and forcing that idea on the rest of the world. There's a big difference.-AmesGyo! 01:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Phelps is not pro-family, he's pro-hate. There's a difference. His websites are not family-friendly, his sermons are not, nor are his "hymns", and neither are his images. --Liπus the Turbogeek(contact me) 11:54, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

What does Phelps stand for, _besides_ hating gays? That seems to be his one schtick. And by all accounts, he psychologically and physically abused his OWN family, which doesn't sound too 'pro-family' to me. [1] (Court evidence--not for the weak of stomach.) --Gulik3 07:56, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

What the #$@%

This page mention nothing about the sick twisted and evil nature of Fred Phelps and his family cult. I don't know how this site can call itself conservative and not utterly denounce someone who celebrates the deaths of our fighting men and women and taunts the families of our brave departed soldiers. I am disgusted that he gets off with one line of criticism. Opcn 01:41, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Opcn, I believe the principle at work here is "The Enemy Of My Enemy Is My Friend." Which is a very long way from "Love thine enemies" but that was just some liberal claptrap from about 33 AD or so. Teresita 01:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Phelps and Religion

"It's hard to be religious when certain people aren't incinerated by bolts of lightning." -- Calvin. --Gulik3 07:46, 21 May 2007 (EDT)