Fox News vs. The Westboro Baptist Church

heh well in line with that, you know what no one has asked them?

If our soldiers are being killed solely because god's pissed cause we love gay people, how do they explain all the dead soldiers from the times when we didn't love gay people? And if we hunt down and kill all the gay people, are they then of the opinion that soldiers in a war won't die? And if that's the case, how do they explain places where gay people are hunted down and killed but soldiers still die?

But maybe that's too much logic all at once huh?

Not to detract from the flamefest, but I honestly think the Phelpses don't believe the crap that is coming out of their own mouths. They're just griefers. I think their ploy is to incite people into violence with whatever outrageous crap , then sue the pants off enraged people who clock them. Why else do you think they have someone videocamera recording every one of their protests at all times? Think it's a cooincidence that 7 members of the Phelps family are lawyers? ... Sorry, 6 now. Fred Phelps was disbarred for perjury and a series of various ethical violations. The motion for his disbarment was signed by every federal judge in the state of Kansas.

Thankfully, congress has some sanity. Senate Bill H.R. 5037 the “Respect for America’s Fallen Heroes Act” was signed into law on May 29, 2006. The act was designed to prevent protests within 300 feet of the entrance of a cemetery from 60 minutes before to 60 minutes after a funeral. Penalties for violating the act are up to $100,000 in fines and up to one year imprisonment. Suck it Phelps. Suck it long, and suck it hard.

Republicans spouting this particular line of horseshit find roots in the movement against "intolerance". Because this trend didn't address a specific form of "intolerance" and addressed all intolerance as a bad thing, Conservatives without a leg to stand on argue the paradoxical nature of being intolerant of intolerance.

So let me narrow things down.

Intolerance of intolerant attitudes regarding race, religion, sexual preference, gender, nationality, or any other aspect of a human being that is anything other than analysis of their actions = GOOD intolerance

The above intolerant attitudes = BAD intolerance.


Hope that clears things up for you, Kevn.

Having done some research of my own on the Phelps family, I have to agree with you.

I don't think the content of their speech is the issue. If it were only about speech it's simple, they are welcome to their opinion. As long as they aren't breaking laws, they are free to speak.

The reason I joined this thread was to say I was appalled at the way Fox's interviewing reported did her job. I expect the fringe religious person to get emotional, but not a professional reporter. She lost her cool which caused her to lose credibility, and she was ineffective in examining the beliefs of that group.

THe diagnosis of a little bit of poison making a good cure could be right, here.

It'd be nice to see people listen less to Faux News because of silliness like this.

Wouldn't this be an issue of intolerant attitudes regarding religion, because these people are practicing their religion in this case? You are essentially attacking their religious beliefs.

Truly you have a dizzying intellect

Your ability to debate an issue is astonishing...

You win!

OOh I haven't read the rest of the thread but did anyone catch Kevn on this? You fight all bigotry? Just wondering?

To quote... I dunno, someone: Your freedoms end where another's begin.

Believe whatever the hell you want. Your actions, however, are another thing.

Sure the Fox reporter looked unprofessional as a reporter and it was a dumb thing to do career wise.

We are all human and prone to error in judgement --- havent you ever did a major "Ooops" in your life.

But what the reporter did, was what alot of us deep down in our gut wanted to do. She went toe to toe - hot head to hot head, point to point with someone who yanked her chain and the chain of many other Americans.
The reporter knew that her questions and arguments would fall on deaf ears from that group and not even make a difference, but on principal alone she marched ahead.

I bet after she took her mic off she thought - Man that was stupid of me - but damn it felt good! Grrrrrrr

Just like alot of you know that your comments on these forums wont win you the Nobel Peace Prize---- but you type them anyways.

The religious practice of Christianity does not now nor has it ever required its members to picket funerals in order to achieve the actual goal of Christianity: salvation through the icon Jesus Christ and his teachings and/or the teachings of his followers.

Their religious belief might be tied to their reasoning for the action, but it is not the action itself, therefore it is not an intolerant take on their beliefs.

So, if somebody's religion practices human sacrifice, we should just let them do that because if we stop them we are attacking their religious beliefs?

That would be illegal, and therefore not a valid example?

To head off on a different branch, so is harassment, and technically, any attempt to spread one's belief system can be percieved as harassment.

Sit on that one for a bit .

The religion says to go warn people who they think are in danger of hell. If they don't warn them the Bible says the blood of the sinner is on their hands. If that's their belief, what do you want to insist they ignore their religion to suit you?

Define illegal harassment, and how it applies to them.

The Bible also says that if you attempt to plant the seed, and are turned away, you have done your duty to God, and not to push the matter. So, in order for them to be actually practicing their religion in the manner you are expressing, then these people would have to desist their activity the moment anyone attending the funeral requested it. The Bible itself condemns the harassing activity, therefore they are not doing what they are doing as an expression of Christianity, which identifies itself by its iconery: one of these icons being the bible.

Interestingly, this leads into the definition of harassment. If someone tells you to stop doing something to them, and you refuse or continue in spite of that request, then you are harassing them and can be subject to lawsuit.

If they go to a city street to preach, do you find it a requirement they stop preaching when a single by-passer objects? I don't.

If, at some point, they feel the group as a whole is not responding positively, they probably do leave. But that is up to their personal understanding of the scriptures. If they feel they must reach everyone there before leaving, that's what they should do.

If the government feels it's an invasion of privacy of the family, the government will pass laws that will create a buffer so the speech can continue without affecting the funeral.

I support the right of PETA to come to my backyard BBQ to protest the eating of meat. Until I toss them from my private property.

Here, street preachers are arrested regularly for refusing to leave property when asked by store owners. Additionally, some who have harassed the same person more than once or the same family have been subject to lawsuit.

There is no law that makes it illegal to preach to the same person twice. Store owners have property rights over their stores, and can insist anyone leave. If the person refuses to leave, the police will arrest them for trespassing.

It's called Religious Harassment. It's a shame your'e not familiar with it. CHange religions and you will be.

If you are talking about a workplace environment, then yes, there is an issue.

If what they are doing is illegal, the police will deal with them.