"See, this is what happens when we don't win the case the first time. We have to defend them in the appeal." -- ACLU

That would seem like a bold statement of the obvious from the ACLU.

Dave

These particular "christians" are nothing more than theological thugs and anarchist - they are evil incarnate. The only difference between them and Islamic Fascists is the type of bomb they're throwing. The intent is the same, to murder freedom of thought and more importantly freedom from religion. All they want is attention for their sick form of bigotry and hate. And why shouldn't they be criminally prosecuted for "hate" crimes against humanity??? Here are a couple of quotes that say it precisely: "People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought, which they avoid." Søren Aabye Kierkegaard and "...When compared with the suppression of anarchy every other question sinks into insignificance. The anarchist is the enemy of humanity, the enemy of all mankind, and his is a deeper degree of criminality than any other." Theodore Roosevelt, 1908.

When it really comes down to it all these theological anarchists want is attention and media time for their sick and hideous beliefs? There is no biblical basis for their hateful ways - Christ and the bible say over and over throughout the scriptures to hate the sin not the sinner. Christ life was an example of UNCONDITIONAL tolerance, love and compassion for all of mankind, friend and foe. What of these aspects of Christianity do they not get?

Two major forms of non-atheism exist in the world: theism and deism. Neither of these basis for true spiritual belief suggest, infer or dictate hateful, uncompassionate interaction between humans. The two greatest gifts from God are "Free Will" and "Eternal Life." These clowns would remove your free will at the point of a gun and set themselves up as the judges of who will have eternal life. Enough Say???

(It looks like Bill already said some of this, but what the heck.)

Dave, you misunderstand the psychology of the group. They're not trying (poorly) to position themselves for sympathy among the like-minded. They're not bummed out that people hate them.

A group like this receives its vindication when it's hated by society. Society is rotten; we're good; ergo, society must hate us. It would be a sin to blend in with civilized company. (Dave, if it helps, they'd hate you defending them.) It doesn't occur to them that they're reviled because they're tuchases, not because they're Christians.

what troubles me is the similarity of fanatical mentality between these nuts the 9/11 truthers and the economic armageddon freaks like our own Anand Menon. while these groups may disagree on their pet issues they seem to share an underlying hatred of freedom whish is quite troubling.

I think you're probably right that fanatics are everywhere on virtually every issue. I'm not sure that the groups you mention have much more in common than just being fanatics, however.

However, as with any group of fanatics who are isolated and largely exist in their own little pocket of fanatic culture, there's the possibility for things to get way out of hand. It's not a long trip from protesting a funeral to bombing a gay bar.

Fortunately, the cultlike aspect of this particular church has some effect in keeping things under control, because Phelps seems to have strict limits on how crazy he's willing to let things get. But when he dies and the younger generation, brought up in fanaticism, takes over, who knows how far things will go.

Dave

Dave, you misunderstand the psychology of the group. They're not trying (poorly) to position themselves for sympathy among the like-minded. They're not bummed out that people hate them.

I agree with this to some extent, and I don't think I said that they had any sense of shame or desire for approval. They LIKE being persecuted and I think that they are correct in believing that the image of being persecuted for being righteous is effective in attracting the small number of like-minded lunatics who are out there in the general public.

A group like this receives its vindication when it's hated by society. Society is rotten; we're good; ergo, society must hate us. It would be a sin to blend in with civilized company. (Dave, if it helps, they'd hate you defending them.)

I certainly hope so. I'm a firm adherent of just about everything they think has put us on the hotrails to hell.

It doesn't occur to them that they're reviled because they're tuchases, not because they're Christians.

But my point is that even being reviled gets them free publicity in a way that just ignoring them would not do. So to a large extent this lawsuit is probably making them jump for joy for the reasons you point out and also because anything that gets them more exposure is a good thing in their eyes.

At the most basic level, if they didn't want to attract converts and sway a few minds, they wouldn't be engaging in such public, attention seeking behavior, so even if they think up is down and wrong is right, they DO think there are others out there who they can reach and who would agree with them.

Dave

Fred "Freedom of Speech" Phelps adds unwanted and inappropriate, even obscene, drama at funerals where families and fellow-soldiers are grieving their dead. Adding injury to insult, he clogs up the legal system for years afterward, all for the glory of extracting the reluctant, but quite correct, admission from everyone else that he was perfectly within his LEGAL rights to do so.

Some Floridian college student brazenly moves to the front of the line in the hushed and sacred atmosphere of a politician's Q and A session, and within minutes the desecrator is being tazed.

#7 I'm not so sure Dave Nalle, that Phelp's goal is to win converts from the outside. It sounds like the reverend is providing spiritual guidance to a rather inbred group of individuals.

All manner of outrageous behavior is visited upon the public by folks who have no intention of influencing others to adopt certain viewpoints. Psychopaths. Eccentrics. Demon-possessed, or demon-obsessed.

And most commonly, bullies. For them, pulling the wings off living flies is a bigger kick if there's an audience.

I strongly oppose these vile scum. And I'm on the record here, in previous comments, as deeply despising them. However, I also oppose civil litigation which has the purpose and/or outcome of bankrupting organizations that promote unpopular speech.

These filth should be shunned by all decent people. And the Patriot Guard does the families of fallen military personnel a great service through their efforts to "quiet" their disgusting protests. But a multi-million dollar civil suit aimed at shutting them down permanently? I don't know if the ends justify the means in this case...

By the way, this was a great column, Dave.

"So to a large extent this lawsuit is probably making them jump for joy for the reasons you point out and also because anything that gets them more exposure is a good thing in their eyes."

Hmmm:

Members of the church, however, reportedly greeted the verdict with tight-lipped smiles.

"It will take the 4th Circuit of Appeals a few minutes to reverse this silly thing," said Rev Phelps. [emphasis mine]

Smiles? Yes, these loons appear happy with the outcome... :-/

Here is an audio file of these loons singing...seriously, you can't make this shit up.

The Mormon Tabernacle Choir it ain't...

I think there's certainly an element of the martyr complex at work here. The more they suffer the closer they come to god. Some sort of reasoning like that.

But Irene is off-base on both of her points.

Phelps is not a bully. It may seem like he's bullying the veterans families, but from his perspective they are largely irrelevant. He doesn't care about the funeral as anything but an opportunity to be offensive and attract attention.

And as for the tasing in Florida, although I think the intent of the guy who was tased is quite similar to what Phelps tries to do - and he achieved his objective by getting tased and attracting media attention as a result - legally there's a world of difference because despite the pretense that it was a public forum with questions and everything, it was basically a private event.

Dave

very good piece, Dave.

Well written, as always, and you walked the tightrope of defense vs richly deserved censure with skill, Dave.

I do sometimes think, however, that from time to time situations arise where the old-fashioned methods are best: perhaps some of those targeted by these assholes should just get together, and horsewhip & tar-&-feather them. Or break their legs. Where's the mafia when you need them?

Nancy, I had to try very hard to resist saying exactly what you said in your comment. My first, emotional reaction was that we should just look the other way and let the Patriot Guard beat the living crap out of the protesters. But satisfying though that might be, it still wouldn't be right.

Dave

No .. but I'm not the author, or trying to be evenhanded, like you were, either! I agree - they have the 'right', but with rights come concomitant responsibilities. If those responsibilities are not exercised, then neither should the rights. Since the Phelps group has seen fit to throw the responsibilities of free speech down the toilet, IMO at least, they also forfeit the right to the privilege of same - & the law supports this, in that it is in fact illegal to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre - unless there really IS a fire.

On the plus side, if any can be found at all, they do make overt religiousity even more repugnant to all thinking persons who aren't already convinced of such.

Still, I can't help thinking there must be some way legally to clip their wings & force their protests to take place so that the survivors of the deceased aren't forced to hear or see their abuse.

A further question: in many places in the country (if not all, I'm not sure if it's a federal or state/local mandate) so-called 'hate speech' is banned outright. ANY kind of hate speech, from calling gays 'fags', etc. to ethnic slurs like 'nigger' or 'kike' or what-have-you. In fact, in my (DC) area, it's gotten to the point where someone doesn't even have to say anything specific - just be generally anti-somebody or other - & that party gets banned or otherwise penalized. Why have these people not been brought up on charges of hate speech, incitement, etc.? Has any attempt been made to prove unfit parenthood, to remove any children from their custody, etc? I have to admit I haven't been following the details of these cretins very closely, except to wonder why they've been allowed to operate, or why some mourning relation of the deceased hasn't finally had enough & picked up a rock & smashed Phelps to death or at the least horsewhipped him. I certainly would have, without getting bogged down in wallowing in questions of his civil rights, when he had been so blatantly violating my human rights.

Comment?

I think it was in the early 90s when a database was set up to track the anti-choice activists who blockaded clinics. When they could be charged as repeat offenders across state lines, it was amazing how God stopped calling them to get up to stuff. Somehow She wasn't willing to keep paying the fines. That's how I heard it, anyway.

Do the Phelps assholes cross state lines? Maybe someone should try that. Maybe that's the key. RICO can be used to try some amazing things.

Still, I can't help thinking there must be some way legally to clip their wings & force their protests to take place so that the survivors of the deceased aren't forced to hear or see their abuse.

A number of states have passed specific laws to hinder Phelps, including laws just outright banning protests at funerals and laws dictating how far away protesters have to stay from funerals. Those seem like reasonable approaches to the problem.

But, of course, some of these laws do seem like unreasonable restrictions of free speech, and they don't carry super-heavy penalties, so the Phelps followers might be willing to put up with a fine or a few days in jail for the additional publicity of getting arrested.

A further question: in many places in the country (if not all, I'm not sure if it's a federal or state/local mandate) so-called 'hate speech' is banned outright. ANY kind of hate speech, from calling gays 'fags', etc. to ethnic slurs like 'nigger' or 'kike' or what-have-you. In fact, in my (DC) area, it's gotten to the point where someone doesn't even have to say anything specific - just be generally anti-somebody or other - & that party gets banned or otherwise penalized. Why have these people not been brought up on charges of hate speech,

Hate speech laws don't hold up well in court, and I suspect the ACLU would get them off and get any such law struck down. IMO hate speech laws are a waste of paper and inherently unconstitutional. They just make no sense at all.

incitement, etc.? Has any attempt been made to prove unfit parenthood, to remove any children from their custody, etc?

Surprisingly, all accounts are that within the family they live a pretty normal life and don't do the kinds of things you find in other cults like child abuse. Kids go to regular public schools, are allowed to dress normally and have outside friends. It's just on this one issue that they seem to be nuts.

Dave

If only we could make a collective decision to ignore the Phelpses and their peculiar and disgusting brand of idiocy.

But we don't. Grieving families at funerals are very vulnerable. And it's hard not to continue to react every time these stories show up in the papers.

Was this the same group that picketed Matthew Shepard's funeral? The picketers there were met by silent counter-protesters wearing angel wings, which they used to block the offending signs from cameras and from the view of mourners. Maybe this was a better idea than the revving motorcycles.

And surely they can be required to keep a certain physical distance from the funerals.

Now that they have become a familiar sight and some of the shock has faded, maybe we can begin to laugh at them and/or ignore them, rather than feeding their desire for attention.

Does the church have the cash to deal with this judgment if it comes to that? That'd be a show-stopper for a normal church.

No, the Church does not have the money to pay the damages, but it doesn't really matter, because they can easily operate on virtually no money, and they've got the ACLU to handle their legal defense.

Dave

If only we could make a collective decision to ignore the Phelpses and their peculiar and disgusting brand of idiocy.

We do ignore him, at least those of us on the religious right. We don't think about him or talk about him at all. And it's not because of some implicit support. He's just hateful and wrong and not worth our time. Only non-religious people ever seem to think about him.

As for "the Phelpses", I hope you're talking about the family, and not the Phelps-like people in the world, because there are no people like them.

As for "the Phelpses", I hope you're talking about the family, and not the Phelps-like people in the world, because there are no people like them.

I sure wish that were true, but the Phelps family is hardly alone. There are similarly intolerant and attention-seeking groups all over the country.

Dave

"As for "the Phelpses", I hope you're talking about the family, and not the Phelps-like people in the world, because there are no people like them."

Have to disagree with you there, Baronius.

There are hateful, intolerant religious fanatics all over the world, in just about every religion.

They are the source of some of the worst problems in the world today.

Dave and Clavos, maybe you have a better ear for religion than I do. But I doubt it. There's a difference betweeen not agreeing with you and hating you. There's also a difference between falling into hatred and embracing it. Phelps's group is unique.

What about the extremist followers of Islam?

Baronius, you need to get down to the Bible belt some more and stop into a few Southern Baptist or Pentecostal congregations. Or just read up on the Christian Identity Movement.

The Phelpses are on the fringe, but they aren't the only ones out there.

Dave

a profound world wide ingnorance of what the bible teaches.the phelps seem to be the only ones who believe what the bible says.the very GOD that has the power to bless a nation also has the power to curse it.all the day long you american fools scream GOD BLESS AMERICA!.never following your logic to its reasonable conclusion.

Like I said, I really doubt that you guys have a better understanding of religion than I do. Phelps isn't trying to convert or terrorize people. He's trying to apall them. Even the craziest bin Laden follower is trying to make the world better. He can't see that he's doing disgusting things. Phelps, on the other hand, does disgusting things because they're disgusting. He wants his version of Christianity to be cast out from society.

The Wikipedia article on the Phelpses' Westboro Baptist Church is completely fascinating. They have to rank among the most bizarre and hateful phenomena ever.

Baronius, James H seems to be right with the Phelpses, so I suggest that shows that they are not an isolated phenomenon.

Dave

Out of curiosity, I just checked Fred's Wikipedia entry to find out if any of his multitudinous children were named James H. Phelps, but much to my disappointment this is apparently not so. It would have been rather poetic.

Or just read up on the Christian Identity Movement.

The Phelpses are on the fringe, but they aren't the only ones out there.

The Christian Identity Movement is indeed racist and anti-Semitic, but they tend to keep to themselves. These Phelps followers, on the other hand, are not merely "politically incorrect" and intolerant; they are batshit insane, and thirst for media attention like a wino thirsts for some MD 20/20.

The ACLU defended Phelps in Idaho a few years back, and apparently changes its position on free speech according to what Fred Phelps wants.
You seem to be pretty confident, Dave Nalle, in your assessment of the nature of Phelps' motivation. Perhaps you could shed some light on the ACLU's?

Phelps rode into Boise Idaho and demanded that he be allowed to erect an anti-gay monument in a public place. As it happens, there had been a display of the Ten Commandments in a public Boise park since 1966, causing (by the Idaho ACLU's admission) little offense until it was stirred up by Phelp's challenge: the Ten Commandments monument comes down, or his anti-homosexual monument was going up.

If Phelps were really seeking attention for his anti-gay agenda, he failed miserably. Phelps, and his anti-gay agenda, were quickly forgotten as the community was divided (and not equally, I might add) between aggressive atheists (of the Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris variety) and church-goers who objected to having their community bullied into pulling down a monument that had stood for over 30 years. (The matter was all settled behind closed doors in a private city council meeting. The monument was moved, in spite of community-wide protest.)

And what a champion of "freedom of speech" the ACLU turned out to be THAT time! "The American Civil Liberties Union Idaho chapter agrees with Phelps' legal logic. Staff attorney Marty Durand said problems arise whenever the government recognizes the beliefs of one faith because it must then provide equal opportunity for others. Once you open the door, you have to be prepared for whatever walks through," Durand said. "The easiest way to avoid this is to not to have any monuments."

Why isn't the ACLU worried about what manner of religious craziness attendees of military funerals might have to tolerate if Fred Phelps is given free reign? Why aren't the atheists worried that there might be Satanic rock bands with amps that "go to 11", Hare Krishnas chanting, White Supremacist Neo-Nazi Pagans hurling ethnic slurs at the "mud races?"

Of course, all those other things aren't any more likely to happen at military funerals than would be a "Stonehenge" of offensively engraved monuments popping up in the public parks of Boise.

Bottom line, Dave Nalle, shouldn't it be left to the locals--who are forced to see, or not see, or hear, or not hear offensive material--to determine what constitutes a "disturbance of the peace" or without the ACLU getting involved?

When the Neo Nazi pagans and Fred Phelps anti-gay brigade want to march down Main Street, let them have their say, and look the other way. Yes, freedom of speech for ALL, by all means, unless it's interfering with the right of another: the right to a decent night's sleep, or the right to hear what's being said at the funeral of one's child.

***
OK Dave, here's another thorny one.

If Phelps had decided to attend a gay man's funeral, held inside a private church accessible to the public (just as the private room where Edwards was conducting his Q and A was accessible to the Floridian student), and then produced the "God hates Fags" sign concealed beneath his trench coat, would it have been legal for security guards or policeman to faze Phelps, after they'd successfully removed him to the back of the church, as they'd successfully dragged the Floridian student to the back of the room before they'd fazed him?

Yes, constitutionally, Phelps has freedom of speech, but aren't there local ordinances on what constitutes a disturbance of the peace? Shouldn't he have been removed, quietly, without unneccessary violence and hence, without fanfare, to another location if his noises started interfering with the outdoor military funereal procedings?

One out of four homeless in the US are veterans. Compare the aggressive protection of politicians (in Edwards' case, for example) who are faced with inconvenient questions, to the lack of protection, both in life and in death, of the dignity of some of the "peons" who have been, and are being, used up and spat out by their country.

Irene:

It was Kerry, not Edwards.

Irene, I don't think the ACLU relishes defending Phelps or neo-Nazi groups. But their stance is a clear and valid one: the first amendment exists to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech doesn't usually need defense.

And public funds should not be used for a religious monument, period. No matter who gets upset by this simple and direct application of the Constitution. And such a monument is not covered by free speech provisions, because it is the government speaking when tax money is used.

Thanks RJ. And..woops...it was tased not fazed, or tased AND fazed, I suppose.

Handyguy-- The Ten Commandments monument was not paid for with taxpayers' money. It was a gift to the city of Boise, where it had been for over 30 years. With this understanding, Handyguy, do you now see the inconsistency between the ACLU's defense in the Idaho case and the Maryland case?
The "taxpayer" argument falls through, and I'm still wondering what motivated the ACLU's inconsistency. Do only public displays that reinforce their view of religion as hateful and unreasonable get to stay?

I understand the purpose of the 1st amendment, Handyguy, which is why I wrote that the Neo-Nazis and Fred Phelps have the right to parade down Main Street. Freedom of speech isn't protected, though, when it infringes on the right of another, as it does in libel, for example, or when it disturbs the peace by interfering with (to the point of nearly shutting down) the conducting of a community-approved event, such as one whose purpose is to meet the basic human need of people to mourn their dead.

this entire Issue is indeed a sticky one...let's have a look at the governing bit in the secular Covenant of our Constitution...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

now i bolded a part that very few ever appear to remember...

the lawsuit falls under that "redress of grievances" bit, imo

and therein lies the crux of it...those protesters have the Right to express themselves..and private Citizens have every Right to sue the shit out of them for "grievances" caused by said protest...

then it goes to a Jury under the Rule of Law...and so, the results we have seen (still subject to Appeal)

that's the Way our System is supposed to work, and it appears to be functioning fine...a bit slow and ponderous...but hey, that's the way it's supposed to go in the U.S.

as for the "Ten Commandments statue"...was the one in Question another of the movie promotionals that were given out way back when it was released?

just because something wrong has been around for a while, doesn't make it any less wrong, imo...tradition does NOT trump the Rule of Law

Excelsior?

Good article Dave. Well presented.

From my vantage point, the Phelps are just as perplexing, annoying, needy, and shallow as racists. When I see them doing their thing on TV, I get the same feeling as I do when watching other bigots. They make you tired.

However what may be more enlightening is that I get that same feeling in my normal day to day life when dealing with people who assume a natural superiority to me because I have glowing carmel skin. It is odd, eye rolling, exhausting, pitiful, crazy, frustrating, and hopeless. Just as Phelps and his brood invokes all of those emotions, that is what one experiences as a minority in America. Sometimes you just want to shake the stupor out of people but you know that it is simply hopeless.

Gonzo: No it wasn't, unless it was a "regift" that had been in storage for nine years! :) Per the link above, the Ten Commandments monument was a gift to Boise from the Fraternal Order of Eagles in 1965. The movie came out in 1956.

It's freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"--including atheism. Atheism *is* a religion, and one of its more fanatical manifestations is the sniffing out and removal of any reference to God, even if it has historical significance as an artifact from the time (as recently as 1965) when Americans respected the Creator.

Speaking of military cemeteries, public property, and religious symbols thereon, Canada gave a quite imposing 24 foot high Cross monument to America, and it now stands in Arlington National Cemetery. Any plans afoot to get rid of it? Fred Phelps in, crosses out.

Irene sez - "It's freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. "

bullshit....it's both

freedom of also means freedom from for those who don't hold to any particular Faith...including Atheists, Agnostics, Deists and so on...

unless both are observed, some are left unprotected...but when both are observed by the secular Covenant of the Constitution and Rule of Law...then ALL are protected...from Buddhists to Satanists and Wiccans....as well as the Judeo Christians, Muslims and worshippers of JuJu

also..i was Asking about the statue..i was not certain which round of "gifts" it came from... history of the project here...

Excelsior?

Irene,

I agree with Gonzo on this.

Also, I don't believe in "a generic Creator". I believe in MY understanding of who the Creator is. So who you define God to be may not be who I think God is, meaning, to me your god is not God. Therefore we would not be in agreement in OUR belief.

From a theological standpoint, the idea of "in God we trust" is useless and should therefore be omitted. Freedom of religion and FROM religion all of a sudden becomes beneficial to all of us, including believers.

If what I believe in is purple and slim and what you believe in is orange and cylindrical, WE do not have the same belief, even if we call it the same thing. I should be afforded the liberty to not believe in YOUR God if I so chose. I should be free FROM your religion.

Also, in the not so distant future, most Americans will be atheists. When that day comes, should their beliefs be forced on you simply because they are a majority? Should "we" post "In god we do not trust" on our currency then?