Westboro Baptist Church
-
I saw a doco on these guys the other day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church[^] They can't be serious, right ? Anyone have any dealings with these clowns ?
Christian Graus Please read this if you don't understand the answer I've given you "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )
Phelps and his cronies are - unfortunately - all too serious. :mad: The word "hatemonger" was quite literally made for that man - he makes Stephen Green (of the so-called "Christian Voice" pressure group here in the UK) look like a Teletubby. Very, very unpleasant and not at all Christian.
Anna :rose: Having a bad bug day? Anna's Place | Tears and Laughter "If mushy peas are the food of the devil, the stotty cake is the frisbee of God"
-
I saw a doco on these guys the other day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church[^] They can't be serious, right ? Anyone have any dealings with these clowns ?
Christian Graus Please read this if you don't understand the answer I've given you "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )
Christian Graus wrote:
Anyone have any dealings with these clowns ?
I e-mailed them a while back, and surprisingly, I got an e-mail back. I basically said that a church composed simply of family members is a pretty lame church, and they called me 'Raving Ravel' and dismissed every insult I made. Still, it was more than I was expecting, considering all the hate-mail that they probably get. Maybe it was because I made it sound like a serious e-mail at first, but then it got kinda nasty. :rolleyes:
-
Everyone has a right to peaceful protest. What if the government was totally corrupt and doing bad things and anyone who spoke out against the government was treated with beatings? They should be able to tell people about their controversial message.
Hold On Let Me Think wrote:
Everyone has a right to peaceful protest.
Says who?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Anyone have any dealings with these clowns ?
I e-mailed them a while back, and surprisingly, I got an e-mail back. I basically said that a church composed simply of family members is a pretty lame church, and they called me 'Raving Ravel' and dismissed every insult I made. Still, it was more than I was expecting, considering all the hate-mail that they probably get. Maybe it was because I made it sound like a serious e-mail at first, but then it got kinda nasty. :rolleyes:
http://www.godhatessweden.com/html/royalfamily.html I wouldn't bother writing to people like this.
Christian Graus Please read this if you don't understand the answer I've given you "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )
-
Hold On Let Me Think wrote:
Everyone has a right to peaceful protest.
Says who?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
The irony is that as a society we once had the ability to deal with such extremism quite effectively. Now, thanks to extreme leftist misinterpreations of the constitution, such groups proliferate. 50 years or so ago, these people would have just had the shit beat out of them in any community they dared attempt such demonstrations in. Now, they can freely promote their insanity with the full blessing of the 14th amendment, and no one can touch them. As with nearly everything, it is just another example of the good intentions of the left back firing on our entire society.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Now, thanks to extreme leftist misinterpreations of the constitution, such groups proliferate.
Wow! Free Speech is a misinterpretation of the constitution by extreme leftists :wtf: . In your world, Stan, is there such a thing as a leftist who is not extreme?
Stan Shannon wrote:
50 years or so ago, these people would have just had the sh*t beat out of them
Another Wow! Violent suppression of dissent is the American way. :rolleyes:
-
Russell Morris wrote:
You can have free speech rights and get punched in the face for being a total jackass.
That's gotta be the quote of the century....
Christian Graus Please read this if you don't understand the answer I've given you "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )
Christian Graus wrote:
That's gotta be the quote of the century....
I thought it was right on the mark. People like this gang think that they can not only act like Joshua on the Internet, they can do so in person.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
I saw a doco on these guys the other day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church[^] They can't be serious, right ? Anyone have any dealings with these clowns ?
Christian Graus Please read this if you don't understand the answer I've given you "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Says who?
Thomas Jefferson. You OK? Haven't seen many posts out of you.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Thomas Jefferson
Where? I don't recall any quotes to the affect of "A community must be forced by an omnipotent federal state to tolerate the promotion of opinions offensive to it's general moral preferences." Doesn't seem very anti-federalist. The anti-federalist merely wanted the federal government to be restricted from controlling speech. They never imagined that the government would use that very restriction to mean that there could be no means to do so at all by anyone any where, that the public would be held captive by their own constitution to be powerless to affect the content of speech in any way. Whether or not speech represented 'yelling fire in a crowded theater' was supposed to have been an entirely local concern.
Oakman wrote:
You OK? Haven't seen many posts out of you.
Just busy.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Now, thanks to extreme leftist misinterpreations of the constitution, such groups proliferate.
Wow! Free Speech is a misinterpretation of the constitution by extreme leftists :wtf: . In your world, Stan, is there such a thing as a leftist who is not extreme?
Stan Shannon wrote:
50 years or so ago, these people would have just had the sh*t beat out of them
Another Wow! Violent suppression of dissent is the American way. :rolleyes:
oilFactotum wrote:
Free Speech is a misinterpretation of the constitution by extreme leftists
Yes, or at least your interpretation of it certainly is.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
Free Speech is a misinterpretation of the constitution by extreme leftists
Yes, or at least your interpretation of it certainly is.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Intersting that you believe free speech is a communist plot. Poor Stan.
-
Intersting that you believe free speech is a communist plot. Poor Stan.
oilFactotum wrote:
Intersting that you believe free speech is a communist plot.
I believe that virtually every interpretation of the constitution since about 1945 has been part of an ongoing Marxist plot.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
Intersting that you believe free speech is a communist plot.
I believe that virtually every interpretation of the constitution since about 1945 has been part of an ongoing Marxist plot.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
believe that
Yeah, I know you do. Hence - "Poor Stan".
-
Oakman wrote:
Thomas Jefferson
Where? I don't recall any quotes to the affect of "A community must be forced by an omnipotent federal state to tolerate the promotion of opinions offensive to it's general moral preferences." Doesn't seem very anti-federalist. The anti-federalist merely wanted the federal government to be restricted from controlling speech. They never imagined that the government would use that very restriction to mean that there could be no means to do so at all by anyone any where, that the public would be held captive by their own constitution to be powerless to affect the content of speech in any way. Whether or not speech represented 'yelling fire in a crowded theater' was supposed to have been an entirely local concern.
Oakman wrote:
You OK? Haven't seen many posts out of you.
Just busy.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
They never imagined that the government would use that very restriction to mean that there could be no means to do so at all by anyone any where, that the public would be held captive by their own constitution to be powerless to affect the content of speech in any way.
I forgot that you wish the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States. On the other hand: "In every country where man is free to think and to speak, differences of opinion will arise from difference of perception, and the imperfection of reason; but these differences when permitted, as in this happy country, to purify themselves by free discussion, are but as passing clouds overspreading our land transiently and leaving our horizon more bright and serene." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waring, 1801. Note that he said country, not state.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Just busy.
Good to hear.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
They never imagined that the government would use that very restriction to mean that there could be no means to do so at all by anyone any where, that the public would be held captive by their own constitution to be powerless to affect the content of speech in any way.
I forgot that you wish the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States. On the other hand: "In every country where man is free to think and to speak, differences of opinion will arise from difference of perception, and the imperfection of reason; but these differences when permitted, as in this happy country, to purify themselves by free discussion, are but as passing clouds overspreading our land transiently and leaving our horizon more bright and serene." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waring, 1801. Note that he said country, not state.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Just busy.
Good to hear.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
I forgot that you wish the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States.
I wasn't supposed to. That is why the anti-federalist were so insistant that it be included. Otherwise, it makes absolutely no sense that they would have been so adament about it.
Oakman wrote:
Note that he said country, not state.
For Jefferson, there would have been no difference. As with Lee, his state was his country. In any case, that quote still does not imply that the purpose of free speech was ever intended to mean unlimited offensiveness. Free speech was not about being offensive, it was about purifying themselves by free discussion. And then, after they had settled on a good definition of purity as free men, to kick everyone else's ass.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
believe that
Yeah, I know you do. Hence - "Poor Stan".
oilFactotum wrote:
Hence - "Poor Stan".
Except, of course, that I am correct.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
I forgot that you wish the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States.
I wasn't supposed to. That is why the anti-federalist were so insistant that it be included. Otherwise, it makes absolutely no sense that they would have been so adament about it.
Oakman wrote:
Note that he said country, not state.
For Jefferson, there would have been no difference. As with Lee, his state was his country. In any case, that quote still does not imply that the purpose of free speech was ever intended to mean unlimited offensiveness. Free speech was not about being offensive, it was about purifying themselves by free discussion. And then, after they had settled on a good definition of purity as free men, to kick everyone else's ass.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
For Jefferson, there would have been no difference.
I sincerely doubt that Jefferson ever thought that he was the President of Virginia. In his writings he consistently refers to the Union as a country and to the States as members of the Union. Note that in all the following, he refers to the (capitalised) States, not the countries. "And we have examples of it in some of our State constitutions which, if not poisoned by priest-craft, would prove its excellence over all mixtures with other elements; and with only equal doses of poison, would still be the best." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. And here: "Under governments, wherein the will of everyone has a just influence; as is the case in England, in a slight degree, and in our States, in a great one." Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787 And here: "The people through all the States are for republican forms, republican principles, simplicity, economy, religious and civil freedom." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1800.
Stan Shannon wrote:
In any case, that quote still does not imply that the purpose of free speech was ever intended to mean unlimited offensiveness.
Actually, since the subject under discussion is peaceful protest, I would have thought that the right to assemble was at least equally appropriate. However: "It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVII, 1782. "I am... against all violations of the Constitution to silence by force and not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their agents." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. Is it possible that Thomas Jefferson does not meet your standards of Jeffersonianism?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
oilFactotum wrote:
Hence - "Poor Stan".
Except, of course, that I am correct.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Except, of course, that I am correct.
"By oft repeating an untruth, men come to believe it themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to John Melish, 1813.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
The question which remains, however, is who is repeating the untruth?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
For Jefferson, there would have been no difference.
I sincerely doubt that Jefferson ever thought that he was the President of Virginia. In his writings he consistently refers to the Union as a country and to the States as members of the Union. Note that in all the following, he refers to the (capitalised) States, not the countries. "And we have examples of it in some of our State constitutions which, if not poisoned by priest-craft, would prove its excellence over all mixtures with other elements; and with only equal doses of poison, would still be the best." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. And here: "Under governments, wherein the will of everyone has a just influence; as is the case in England, in a slight degree, and in our States, in a great one." Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787 And here: "The people through all the States are for republican forms, republican principles, simplicity, economy, religious and civil freedom." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1800.
Stan Shannon wrote:
In any case, that quote still does not imply that the purpose of free speech was ever intended to mean unlimited offensiveness.
Actually, since the subject under discussion is peaceful protest, I would have thought that the right to assemble was at least equally appropriate. However: "It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVII, 1782. "I am... against all violations of the Constitution to silence by force and not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their agents." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. Is it possible that Thomas Jefferson does not meet your standards of Jeffersonianism?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
I sincerely doubt that Jefferson ever thought that he was the President of Virginia.
You're still reading your own modern attitude towads 'The United States' versus 'These United States' into Jefferson's writings.
Oakman wrote:
Actually, since the subject under discussion is peaceful protest,
Oakman wrote:
Is it possible that Thomas Jefferson does not meet your standards of Jeffersonianism?
Jeffersonianism is the form of government that Jefferson, et al, worked to create. If Jefferson was what you claim from a few isolated, our of context quotes, then all the reasoning behind the anti-federalist movement he was the de facto leader of, as well as nearly 200 years of American legal and political history make absolutely no sense what so ever. If Jeffersonianism is what you claim it to be, than why did it take 200 years to twist it into its modern form? A government where the Westboro church is allowed to spew any offensive vitirole it likes, where ever it likes, cannot possibly be the same form of government where they previously could not. One of those is Jeffersonian, one of them is not. They both cannot be called the same thing because they are precisely the opposite of one another. I claim that the one which actually existed at the time Jefferson lived is Jeffersonian, and that the one which exists today is not. You have on your side a few quotes, I have on mine the entire span of American history.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.