No rights are really being given up here. The right to free speech does not include the right to have people forced to be an audience for you and to receive your speech.

This isn't strictly speaking a hate speech bill as the title implies. It's more of a privacy rights approach to this issue. If it restricted speech based on content then it would be absolutely unacceptable, but doing it on the basis of access is reasonable and probably constitutionally acceptable.

Dave

That's a good point to.

Also as many cemetarys are private property designated for private events, Phelps nor anyone else has the right to express his free speech there during funerals.


But hypocrisy when it comes ot free specch and the left is nothing new.

Take the ACLU for example........

The head of the ACLU, ANthony Ramero recently said


""Take hate speech." "While believing in free speech, we do not believe in or condone speech that attacks minorities.""


So hate speech is ok as long as it's not directed at minorities?

It's wrong to express speech that would be considered hate speech toward minorities but it's ok to express speech that advocates adules having sex with children? (the aclu has defended the free speech rights of nambla in court numerous times)

Gee I guess the ACLU doesn't really believe in the same rights for all huh?

Big friggin surprise there!

I'm ok with this decision. Expressing opinions is fine, but a funeral is a sacred ritual.

I agree that the right to free speech should be protected, but these people are going beyond free speech to fighting words. I've ridden with the Patriot Guard since last October on eight mission runs. I've run into the Neanderthals from the WBC four of those times. They are disgusting.

Just a note, the Patriot Guard was formed in Kansas, Phelps' home state, not Kentucky.

Common sense dictates that there's a point at which Free Speech degenerates into something which should not be and is not "protected", but common sense is not necessarily inherent in the law. What are the parameters for something like this, BTW? Someone should be able to field racist bumper stickers on their car, as unsavory as it may be to the general public, yet not be allowed to harrass someone minding their own business who happens to be of the detested race of their selection (so to speak). At what point does free speech become illegal harrassment, and what is the legal reasoning for that particular point? Thanks.

Nancy:

You make an excellent point. The right of free speech does not include harrassment, which is what perhaps distinguishes demonstrations at funerals. I have the right to make my views known, whatever they be, but I do not have the right to be disruptive beyond what common decency allows (granted, "common decency" is a vague term, but I think this story provides a good example of what it might mean).

You know, it would be interesting if the gay community were to descend on this clown & his followers & tag THEM for a week or so. You know: attend their church services, cosy up to them, follow them around, shop with them, dine in the same restaurants at the next table, put Gay Power stickers all over their cars, infect them with gay 'cooties', etc. and just generally make THEIR lives hell on earth for real. Now that's a good project, seems to me. How 'bout it, Gay Guys 'n Gals? Make Phelps' town & neighborhood the Gay Capital of the US of A?

How funny that we would abrogate free speech not for some high purpose but merely to protect a show, a ceremony, from a counter-show. Lest we hurt someones feelings, I suppose.

Common sense dictates that there's a point at which Free Speech degenerates into something which should not be and is not "protected",


If this is true as Nancy says,

I would like to ask my fellow BC psoters what they think of the free speech expressed by NAMBLA and what they think of the ACLu who has often rushed to defend NAMBLA's right to free speech

But Bliffle, this isn't a restriction of free speech. That's the point. It's just a protection of the privacy rights of the targets of this speech. Which amendment is more important, the 1st or the 4th?

IMO this bill finds the appropriate balance between the two.

Dave

But Bliffle, this isn't a restriction of free speech. That's the point.

Precisely. As has been said over and over and over again, a person's rights only extend as far as they do NOT infringe on another person's rights.

So noone has an opinion on the ACLU, supposed defender of civil liberties defending a group that advocate's men having sex with young boys (a criminal behavior)?

No, AC. It's that no one thinks it's even vaguely relevant to this topic.

But I'll throw you a bone. The ACLU is dead right in defending NAMBLA, because they're not defending their right to molest children, they're defending their right to discuss it - which is free speech no matter how unpleasant.

Dave

everyone has an opinion.

If you don't want to read the message, you can follow the Supreme Court's advice and "avert your eyes." No one is forcing anybody to read the signs.
And of course Mark Adams says he is willing to give up this right: He is a hell-bound God-hating earth-dweller who despises the word of God. All of you want to stop our preaching because you don't want us to remind you that the soldier is in Hell because his parents, friends, and family brought him up to believe that God was a liar when He said to obey His commandments. You all hate God.

BTW, when we picket at soldier's funerals, we don't actually go on the private property of the funeral home, we stand on public sidewalks.

Isaiah, how shall we avert our ears?

Isaiah:

What religion do you follow? I preach Jesus crucified and risen from the dead. I believe scripture when it says, "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8).

Do you deny Romans 5:8?

How do you deny John 3:16-18
"16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

If you don't believe, you are already condemned, so how about you get off of that maudlin "God loves everyone lie." God hates unbelieving and unrepentant sinners:
Romans 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Psalms 5:5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.

Jesus died for those elect few He preordained to go to Heaven, so stop lying.
Not only that, but Jesus himself said that the majority of mankind is headed straight for Hell:

Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.


Many are found on the path to Hell, and few are found on the path to Heaven. Mainstream Christians believe exactly what you believe: that God loves everyone. Therefore, most "Christians" are liars headed for Hell.

BTW, Romans 5:8 does not say Jesus died for ALL sinners. See the rest of my previous verses.

Its not a Kentucky church. Its the Westboro Baptist Church and there in Oklahoma. Im a Ride Captain for the Patriot Guard Riders in Ky.

We show up at all military funerals wether they are there or not. We only show up at the invite of the family.

Were not counter protesters. Thank you.

Valley Center


The Patriot Guard at a funeral in Wichita late last year. Courtesy photo

Patriot Guard protects families
By Chris Strunk

The Patriot Guard started small, but with a grand purpose. The group of motorcycle riders toting American flags simply wanted to honor war veterans killed in action.

The group, from a Mulvane American Legion Post, couldn't sit back and watch as a Topeka preacher and his family-based church protested during the funerals of these soldiers, holding signs that read "Thank God for dead soldiers" and "Thank God for IEDs."

The riders figured if they could shield the family from that sight, they would honor the soldier as well as the family.

The idea caught fire and spread across the country.

"We knew there were thousands of Americans out there who would do the same thing if asked," said Cregg Hansen, Patriot Guard co-captain. "... The Fred Phelps clan probably has brought more patriotism to the average person than they realize."

The Patriot Guard was formed last August after members of American Legion Post 136 in Mulvane heard of the Phelps protest at a soldier's funeral in Newkirk, Okla.

"We decided that if a soldier within 200 miles riding distance from the Wichita area was killed in action we would go to give our support to the family," Hansen said.

On Oct. 11, the group rode to Chelsea, Okla., to honor Sgt. John Doles. Phelps' group of protesters was there.

"When we arrived, there were 43 Legion riders from Kansas and about 50 additional riders from other groups, including the Legion Riders in Oklahoma, that met us in Chelsea," Hansen said. "... We rode in with flags flying and basically positioned ourselves between the despicable sideshow and the family."

After the funeral and when members of the Westboro Baptist Church left, the Legion Riders were thanked by the family and community of Chelsea.

"We knew then that this was the right thing to do," Hansen said.

Later that month, the group formally organized the Patriot Guard, choosing a new name because it included riders from other organizations. Since then, the guard has participated in 15 "missions."

The guard goes to funerals only when asked by the families of the soldiers. And it doesn't matter whether Westboro Baptist protesters are there.

"We are there to honor our fallen hero and support his or her family," Hansen said.

Hansen said he wasn't surprised by the response the guard has received. It has since gone national, including riders from across the country.

"Now that the (Westboro protesters) have drawn national attention, everyone realizes what idiots they are and why we will continue doing what we do, along with thousands of others," Hansen said. "... There are many Vietnam-era vets who remember coming home to an ungrateful nation. That will never happen again."

The Patriot Guard will be honored during the June 3 Moonlight Madness event in Valley Center. Event organizers said whatever riders come to Moonlight Madness will be treated to a free meal. It's a way, they said, to show the city's appreciation for what the Patriot Guard is doing to honor veterans killed in action.

Moonlight Madness also will feature a car show from 4 to 9 p.m. and a Lions Club food booth from 3 to 9 p.m. downtown.

Its not a Kentucky church. Its the Westboro Baptist Church and there in Oklahoma.

It's in Topeka Kansas actually.

Isaiah:

The meaning of Romans 5:8 is clear. These "sinners" are they who were loved by God while they were yet sinners (the meaning of scripture is clear-what you might add to it is of no interest to me).

You do not know me nor have you made any effort to know me. Yet you presume that I hate God. But I am not moved. The pagans accused the early Christians of being God haters, so I am little concerned by your remark.

I just can't get past the idea that we're restricting unpopular religious speech. There are many restrictions on public assembly (permits and such). If there weren't any existing laws to block Phelps' people, then we are creating a law to allow a specific infringement. That always goes badly.

Further, the people we are targeting are "them". Democracies should never target "them". What really scares me is that I'd love to see this law upheld. I've been trying hard to agree with Dave's analysis, or any approach that would justify this law. And that's how we lose liberties.

Would this be a bigger story if it restricted Muslims? or anti-pollution groups? The homophobic Bible-thumper is the stock villain of our era. Every generation ends up issuing apologies to the prior generation's villain.

Baronius, we're not restricting the speech, we're just restricting where it can be said.

Dave

"If you don't believe, you are already condemned, so how about you get off of that maudlin "God loves everyone lie." God hates unbelieving and unrepentant sinners:
Romans 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."

I don't understand how you can worship a god who is capable of hatred, which is a sin of mere mortals: sinners all. Hatred IS a sin.

It simply makes NO sense that god would hate. Since the bible says he does, I conclude that the bible is wrong, therefore the bible is fallible and NOT gods word. How can one believe anything else that the bible says?

When you say that the Holy Scripture is "deplorable words," then that is all I need to know about you.
Luke 6:45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.

You speak these evil words out of your dark evil heart. All we are doing is quoting you scripture. God is in control of all events (Amos 3:6), not just the ones you like. Therefore, God is in control of killing these soldiers of Iraq. And so, you must decide if this event is a blessing or a curse. If you think it is a blessing, then you have a very warped brain. So, a dead son/daughter/soldier is a curse. Why are these curses being bestowed upon America by God? I'll tell you: because America has sinned away her day of grace by setting up hundreds of thousands of false prophets all over the landscape, telling everyone the two greatest lies: "It's OK to be gay" and "God loves everyone." America is being cursed for not obeying the commandments of God.
Deuteronomy 11:26 Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse;
27 A blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you this day:
28 And a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the LORD your God, but turn aside out of the way which I command you this day, to go after other gods, which ye have not known.

Luke 13: 1-5
There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, Nay: but except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

Isaiah, by what right do you claim to know the will of God, that you can identify those who have died under God's curse? Death came to man from Adam, and we all share in his sin. All men face death. The wheat and the tares grow side by side, and will only be separated at the harvest.

Phelps isn't disrupting the lives of the sinners. He's disrupting the funerals of people that you claim are victims of God's anger. After a demonstration outside a burial, he hasn't interfered with the lives of the people he blames. He's harassed innocents. Even if you have the ability to identify who dies for whose sins, you aren't even protesting against the sinners.

You're breaking God's commands, and doing so ineffectively.

The family, especially the parents, is to blame largely for that soldier's death because they refused to bring that child up in the admonition of the Lord. The majority of these parents of dead soldier's are divorced and remarried adulterers, and so are the soldier's themselves. That is all.

Isaiah, you condemn yourself as an unbeliever by your own statements: if you TRULY believed in the omnipotent God, you would also believe He's quite capable of handling His 'enemies' Himself, & He certainly doesn't need the likes of you to defend Him. He requires of you that you attend to your own sins (Christ's comment about casting stones), and let Him attend to settling the hash of others. But nutcase fundamentalists like you can never comprehend that & insist on adding your own twisted interpretations to suit your own agenda, not His. Oh well.

Isaiah:

Did you write: "The majority of these parents of dead soldier's are divorced and remarried adulterers, and so are the soldier's themselves. That is all."

The 'majority'?

Sounds as if you don't know who these people are at all. Can you prove you know the faith-let alone marital status of these soldiers? And then, what of the minority who are married and God-fearing? You actually thank God when these people are killed by IEDs?

Shocking, folks.

Given that God is in control of everything, how do you know why any given soldier dies? You say we have to decide for ourselves, but do you have some special pagan powers?

Isaiah, I don't normally debate with pagans but since you seem acquainted with scriptures-and cut and paste so well-I will continue this dialoge with you.

I've always found Phelps and his group to be more about hate than love and isn't Christianity supposed to be more about loving your fellow man than condemning him?

And there are many aspects to Phelps' "sermons" which serve to prove his unbalanced views are based on a gospel of his own making.

Restricting or limiting someone's ability to harass others isn't a limit on free speech, it's protecting people from verbal and visual assault.

I honestly don't understand how one man -- Phelps -- has been able to turn hate into such a "noble" calling.

I'm going to skip the Christianity arguments if it's okay with you guys. I just want to point out that that what Americans know as "free speech" is circumscrtibed considerably in other parts of the world parading as democracies, like the EU, the UK, Israel, etc.

I do not know the details of these things in the UK or Europe, but incitement to violence is a criminal offense in this country, as is insulting a civil servant. These offenses are usually used in a way that shuts the "right wing" up in this country. The "left wing" doesn't get hauled into court for such offenses at all and Arabs are rarely, if ever bothered with them, even though the most inciteful and vicious language usually comes out of Arabs at demos...

Americans still have considerably more free speech rights than others do around the world.

There is a clear difference between freedom of speech when limited by a government or other ruling power to stifle philosophical, political or even religious dissent, which should never be allowed, and freedom of speech being used for incitement to hatred or worse, which should never be tolerated.

In the States, Chris, that is what the first amendment to the federal constitution is all about - it limits the action of the federal government, and the 14th amendment to the same constitution extends this restriction (through judicial interpretation of the federal supreme court) to the states and local governing authorities that are extensions of the states.

I do not know about the Kingdom of Spain or the United Kingdom, or the overriding authority of the EU, but laws against incitement are often used to restrict reasonable political speech in this country. While it is not truly acceptable for pigs like Phelps to be allowed free rein to spew hatred at people who at their weakest emotional state - at a funeral - it is easy for me to see how laws like this can slide down the slippery slope of judicial interpretation to restrict speech in far greater ways than they are presently intended.

Chris says: There is a clear difference between freedom of speech when limited by a government or other ruling power to stifle philosophical, political or even religious dissent, which should never be allowed, and freedom of speech being used for incitement to hatred or worse, which should never be tolerated.

Christ "incited" people to hate evil. Hatred per se is not wrong. It is good and healthy when properly directed. You, Chris, are not free of hatred. Among other things you hate the idea of free speech being used "for incitement to hatred". Your statement quoted above is, in fact, an incitement for people to hate that which YOU consider worthy of hatred.

Ah, and therein lies the key. Different people have different ideas of what is or is not worthy of being hated. The European solution to this dilemma is the Napoleanic, dictatorial one. The ruling elite (king, prime minister, parliament, whatever) will make this decision and impose it upon all who disagree.

America, on the other hand, takes the higher, individual freedom road. A simple, clear distinction is drawn between SPEECH and ACTION. With regard to the former, citizens are free to make up their own minds what to hate, and free to express themselves as to both what it is they hate, and why they hate it. And this includes both hatred for ideas (policies, laws, religions, philosophies, etc.) as well as hatred for people (individuals all the way from the president of the country down to a next door neighbor, and groups such as legislatures, races, etc.)

But when it comes to actions, if they THEMSELVES (not somebody else who MIGHT have been "influenced" by them) cause injury to some particular OBJECT of their hatred - which includes property as well as persons - they will be prosecuted to the full extent of the criminal law.

Well, we'll have to disagree, Richard.

If you come round to my house and exercise your freedom of speech to make hateful or threatening remarks to me and my loved ones, to such a degree that we feel intimidated, I'm going to stop you, whatever it takes.

If I can do it legally fine but if not, you better have better weapons than me and the will to use 'em, cos otherwise you're going down.

I believe most people can see that not all aggression or violence is physical, as you so naively believe, and have wisely taken reasonable steps to limit people's ability to harm others.

I'm having a hard time reconciling the title of this article, which is about limiting SPEECH, with the rationalizations which seem to legitimize that based on ACTIONS.

Sorry to be so stupid.

This ruling sounds just like not allowing people to yell "Fire" in a crowded movie house.

It is amusing to watch "Christians" arguing with each other over the Bible. Unfortunately, when they cease to exist they will be unaware that there is no heaven or hell.

Bliff, the interpretation of the first amendment doesn't draw much of a distinction between speech and actions equivalent to speech - like burning a flag.

Dave

IgnatiusReilly,

It may sound as if the ruling is about not allowing people to yell "fire" in a movie house, but I do not think that is the issue. In this case, the matter concerns overstepping the bounds of common decency. I think this case is extraordinary. Normally, I would oppose such a ruling, but these demonstrations border on harassment. There is a line and I think Phelps stepped over it.

the interpretation of the first amendment doesn't draw much of a distinction between speech and actions equivalent to speech - like burning a flag.

Well, Dave, speech itself is a "action". I think the term action in this context means setting in motion other parts of the body besides one's vocal chords, tongue, and lips, with the intent to try and inflict physical injury. That's the distinction. Burning a flag lacks such intent.

Chris: we'll have to disagree, Richard.

We may not be as far apart as you think. My comments were not meant as a justification of Phelps' behavior. And in the case of your hypothetical obnoxious neighbor, his crime is violating your property rights - essentially tresspassing with unwanted sound (Phelps is tresspassing on the cemetary's property.)

He still has the right to express his hatred towards you in a non-physically-threatening manner, should he encounter you in a public place. This can have the healthy effect of getting one's feelings out into the open where they have a chance of being resolved, rather than bottling them up and seething until there is some kind of a violent explosion. He also has the right to talk about his feelings in conversation with other neighbors, either in person or on the internet, provided he does not say anything slanderous.

What worries me about the hate speech legislation advocates is that they seek to outlaw speech that is not directed against any particular individual, and even against speech that is inaccurately labelled as hateful. For example, I am a diversity preservation advocate who believes that it is even more important in the case of the homo sapiens species than it is for species of birds, fish, and insects, to set aside habitat preserves conducive to the preservation of diverse specie varieties.

In plain language I am in favor of segregation. Not a segregation based on hatred of other varieties (races)- but rather one based on a respect for every race to be able to take pride in it's own characteristics, and experience a desire to see itself perpetuated rather than annihilated.

This as you know is not considered a "politically correct" position to take, and those in the PC mainstream will be desirous of using government power to silence me, by arbitrarily designating such a position "hate speech". The concept of hate speech thus becomes simply a disingenuous artifice (to put it politely) to make sure that YOUR postion is the only one allowed to be heard.

I'm afraid I have to maintain my disagreement with you, Richard.

If someone follows me round in public places expressing hostile remarks to me and my family in a civil manner, which would actually be creepier than having them angry, I'm not going to tolerate it.

Richard, your subsequent subtly worded position would be respectable and even sane were it not for the fact that it is a pile of racist pseudo-scientific nonsense.

There is only one race, the human race. Sure, there are some slight DNA coding differences for those who live in areas of particularly high or low solar radiation, normal stuff like that but nothing to support your risible little thesis.

If you want to preserve the classic Nordic blonde stereotype for example, simply haul you and your family as far North as you can and let Nature work its magic.

We call this "hate speech" because you are in fact taking minor, normal genetic variation within a single species and somehow trying to argue that it is in some way "special", to elevate it above other humans in some way. It's so wilfully stupid that there seems no other possible explanation to explain your laughable position.

Chris, you have a dictatorial mentality in the pure tradition of Napoleanic law (everything is forbidden except what is explicitly permitted) and as such are a traitor to the opposite, English common law tradition (everything is permitted except what is explicitly forbidden) which formed the foundation of the American republic.

Nowhere did I state that any form of human variety is more deserving of being preserved than any other. No single race has a monopoly on being "special" or "elevated" above other races. In fact every race has its own special characteristics, making all races, cultures, and ethnicities worthy of being preserved.

And you are being hypocritically inconsistent. Without actually using the word "hate", you are are, by using hostile terms like "stupid" and "laughable" acting in precisely the same manner towards me that you claim you would not tolerate your neighbor acting toward you!

Be thankful that I am the type of a person who defends you right to speak hatefully towards my position, and that I would never try to get the government to muzzle you, the way you favor having the government muzzle me.

Richard, we don't live in a museum, no particular DNA set is worth preserving if it doesn't survive naturally.

I think you're just having a tantrum because blondes are now an endangered species. I'd have thought as a good American and a capitalist, you would have understood the pointlessness of protectionism.

The rest of your remarks about dictatorship et cetera are so deluded I'm simply going to ignore most of them. I'll just point out that you seem to think all ideas should be treated with equal respect. It is, however, neither hypocritical or hateful to describe ideas as either stupid or laughable when they actually are...

no particular DNA set is worth preserving if it doesn't survive naturally.

Please do me a favor, Chris, and pass this little tidbit of wisdom along to the Sierra Club environmentalist freakazoids. Maybe they'll stop wasting so many precious resources of land and money trying to artificially preserve every last variety of bird, fish, and insect species that "doesn't survive naturally."

Unless of course you meant it to be restricted only to the human species.

Belligerence is not protected speech. The aim of the First Amendment is to foster the exchange of ideas, not give some one or some group the right to harass people with distasteful signs. In a democratic society, citizens are able to determine what speech is offensive. The bill, which Bush recently signed, does not prevent the Phelps from expressing his views, only from harassing mourning families.

That said, I would not be surprised if in court action the Supreme Court overturned the bill, though I hope they do not. I think a rational argument can be made in favor of it, that also protects speech.

BTW: Joanie's link in comment #35 is revealing. What a devil that man is. Some are offended that he calls himself a Christian. Others that he says he's an American. I'm offended that he sees himself as a human being.

Also, I think it is ironic that he puts a cartoon of men engaging in sex on his website. Doesn't he oppose that sort of thing?

Richard, you're really going for advanced buffoonery today.

It's completely intellectually dishonest to switch the topic to environmental protection but, following your feint, the reason these precious and limited natural riches are under threat is because of the uncontrolled over-consumption and abuse of these strictly limited resources by humanity.

Devoting some of our resources to trying to protect the environment which makes all life possible doesn't seem like a bad idea to me and certainly has nothing to do with your original specious argument. I don't think the effort to protect such biodiversity can be considered in the same light as your racist arguments.

As to Mr Adams original point, he seems to be trying to suggest that Phelps is wrong but the religious impulses he draws upon are not. I could not, of course, agree with such a visionary interpretation.

Christopher Rose:

Phelps is wrong, and his religious impulse are wrong. He does have the right to speak, but not to harass. That's my point. Congress and the president were right to limit these demonstrations.

I'm REAL skeptical of any new law on this topic, particularly as it would be specifying certain types of speech for banning. Seems like there should be plenty enough legal grounds for minimal control of this idiot just based on common laws against personal harassment.

Beyond that, some of these Patriot Guard Riders ought to just severally and severely beat this fool down the next time he gets up in some grieving mother's face. Which wins out, Phelps desire for attention, or his desire not to be beaten bloody? I'd rather lean on the good sense of a jury to refuse to convict someone under such circumstances than to start passing more laws.

As they say, making laws in response to specific bad cases makes for bad laws.

Al Barger,

I hear you man. I'm doubtful on many points, but we've always assumed that there are some limits to speech. I would not go so far as to prohibit hate speech outright, but when the intent is to harass, a line has been crossed. I'm far more comfortable with the law considering the circumstances. Check out their website and look at the photos; they are freaking insane.

P.S. To anyone who thinks they can defend what they are doing, I'll take you down (I'm ready for you). I'm not talking about arguing over their right to protest, but the intellectual and spiritual content of the material itself.

Your duty to your fellow man is to warn them if they don't repent they are going to Hell. That is how you love your neighbour:
Leviticus 19:17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.
18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

1st of all, yes, we do know a lot about these soldiers, by reading an article or two.
2nd of all, you only need one piece of evidence to know that no matter what his alleged religion is, he is in Hell: HE IS DEAD. Repeatedly in Jeremiah, it says that if you serve God, you will have long life:
Proverbs 3:1 ¶ My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments:
2 For length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they add to thee.

If you say we are harassing people going into the funerals while on PUBLIC PROPERTY, then words cease to have meaning. The Patriot Gaurd Riders, or Biker Chicks as they are more appropriately called, stand on the actual funeral home property. So, it's not about disrupting a funeral, because those counter protestors rev their bycicle engines. It isn't even about protesting the funeral at all; it's about what the words are. The Biker Chicks say God loves the dead soldiers cursed of God, and we say the soldier is in Hell. I know for a fact that you hate God because of your extreme ignorance towards the scriptures and you willingness to believe the lie your priest told you that God loves everyone. If you care about your never dying soul, you will open the Bible for once in your miserable life and read the words that are written there, and you will pretty quickly see the wrath of God over and over and over in the Bible. You will also see these three words or words like it over and over and over: Keep my commandments. In Revelation, which tells of the return of Christ, it is not very loving at all. In fact, it is about God's wrath and all of the blood that will be spilt by Christ.
You are Bible-illiterate and Hell-bound. You all should go to www.thesignsofthetimes.net to see some really good videos.
I'm done with this, because you are never going to understand this, because God has hardened your heart so that you cannot repent and be healed.

Isaiah"...it is about God's wrath and all of the blood that will be spilt by Christ."

You are really bloodthirsty, aren't you?

As it is my duty to warn my "fellow man" that if he doesn't repent, he will go to hell, I will begin with you.

How can you defend Fred Phelps, a known pornographer? I visited his sites and I am sickened. (It's painful for me to describe, but I will be succinct.) On his websites (including the one you told me to visit!) are images of two men engaged in a homosexual act! Even more egregiously, one of the sites portrays a CHILD WITNESSING THE ACT!

About a year ago, I e-mailed Phelps warning him that not only was the image offensive, but that they were sinful. Instead of heeding my warning, Phelps continues to display that pornographic image, publishing it name of Christ!

Further, Phelps and his followers REPRODUCE it and DISPLAY IT PUBLICALLY!

If I were a sheriff in a community and such a banner was displayed, I would arrest Fred Phelps for obscenity. But you, my friend, condone and even support the spreading of pornographic images. Phelps "claims" he is opposed to homosexuality, but he displays images of it?

"A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things." (Matthew 13:25)

You also, my friend, are a pornographer, for you refer people to websites with pornographic images.

REPENT! I say. REPENT!

"Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things." (Romans 2:1-2)

Isaiah, your soul is in peril. I command you NOT to visit pornographic sites. I command you to repudiate any connection you have with the sinner Fred Phelps. Repent!

You also write:

"2nd of all, you only need one piece of evidence to know that no matter what his alleged religion is, he is in Hell: HE IS DEAD. Repeatedly in Jeremiah, it says that if you serve God, you will have long life:"

Are you serious? So anyone who dies young is going to hell? My savior Jesus Christ died in his early 30s. Is he in hell? REPENT! REPENT! REPENT!

Postscript: To all others, I'm just giving it as it is given.

I think you are refering to stick figures.

Isaiah:

Stick figures depicting homosexual acts? You actually defend these?

That's pornography plain and simple.

Congrats! This article has been selected as one of this week's Editors' Picks.

"You only need one piece of evidence to know that no matter what his alleged religion is, he is in Hell: HE IS DEAD. Repeatedly in Jeremiah, it says that if you serve God, you will have long life."

Really, that's what you're going to use? I had hoped for a smarter argument than that. Were Job's children evil? Is Hugh Hefner pious? The average lifespan in India has skyrocketed in the past 50 years: does that mean that Hinduism is now approved by Christ?

As I pointed out earlier, Luke 13 condemns exactly this kind of cause-effect thinking. Similarly, Jesus made strong statements against the rich, which would seem to contradict the Old Testament view of wealth as reward. There is no contradiction in Scripture, so you should re-examine the conclusions you're drawing. Holiness isn't expressed in units of currency or years.

If you want to enlighten people, you have to engage them. Paul debated the Greeks. He didn't confuse people by picketing outside funerals. You'll find that you don't persuade anyone by telling them that they hate God. The disciple who walks into town and shakes the dust off his feet isn't a disciple. He's a dust-shaker.

Is Isaiah Amish? He seems to think that bicycles have engines.

Dave

And why is he referring us to a 7th day adventist parenting group site?

Last I checked Christ actually prohibited the spilling of blood and certainly didn't do it himself, but then that's in the Bible, and I doubt Isaiah is familiar with that obscure work.

dave

Isaiah,

If you are still following this thread, are you a member of Westboro Baptist Church? Visit my blog (see URL) if you want to contact by e-mail.