Military Protest Ban

[Jesuslove]

Congress Passed the Funeral Protest Ban

Thank God Congress has done the right thing to Fred Phelps and his crew! Send them back to Topeka! Last weekend they showed up in Seaford Delaware for a protest at a military funeral and caused a riot in which several people were injured and several people were arrested.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/25/military.funerals.ap/index.html

[DareDevil]

When I read the thread title and then the first post I thought that it was about anti-war protesters who went way too far but THAT???? I mean, what on earth is this Fred Phelps thinking??? But then, what else can we expect from a man who preaches hate in the name of Christ. :rolleyes:

[cheewiee]

Congress Passed the Funeral Protest Ban

Thank God Congress has done the right thing to Fred Phelps and his crew! Send them back to Topeka! Last weekend they showed up in Seaford Delaware for a protest at a military funeral and caused a riot in which several people were injured and several people were arrested.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/25/military.funerals.ap/index.html

....right... because limiting free speech is something we should celebrate...

Listen Fred Phelps is disgusting... but to be completly honest, this bill seriously encroaches on the first amendment rights to free speech, and free assembly.

[DareDevil]

Free speech has never been absolutely free. There have always been limitations. Besides, it is not as if Phelps was forbidden to stage any protest, it is just that he may not do so in this paticular and rather limited context.

[cheewiee]

Free speech has never been absolutely free. There have always been limitations. Besides, it is not as if Phelps was forbidden to stage any protest, it is just that he may not do so in this paticular and rather limited context.

Asside from posing an immediate danger (the proverbial - Yelling fire in a crowded Building) Speech should be free as far as the government is concerned. This is the only way for democracy to work. Anytime you whiddle away what people can say by fear of retribution from the state, we start moving from a Liberty based Democracy, to a more authoritarian based police state.

Listen, I dispise what Phelps stands for, but for the interest of the First Amendment, I have to call this bill what it is... A travesty... It is the COTUS usurping our rights based in the Constitution. I only hope that the constructionalists Bush landed on the SCOTUS help overturn this, and any other forms of Hate Speech Legislation.

The First Amendment doesn't guarantee Free speech for the Popular Majority... It guarantee's free speech for EVERYONE. It is dispicable that Phelps has chosen the Funeral of dead soldiers as a venue for expressing his Point of view, but if the Cemetary lets him in, that's their perrogative.

This country is great, not because we can say the things that the majority agree with, but because we tolerate those things that the dispicable minority says... Because who know's one day We ourselves might find ourself in that minority...

[DareDevil]

Personally, I would not mind it if the law would forbid *me* to disturb a funeral with a protest that does not even have anything to do with the funeral itself. Seriously, this law is not about restricting free speech, it is about decency and respect for those who are mourning the death of a loved one. I mean, all this law does is to forbid any kind of protest on and around a graveyard for 60 minutes before and after a funeral. I'm sure there are still plenty of places where Phelps can spread his hate in the meantime.

[cheewiee]

Personally, I would not mind it if the law would forbid *me* to disturb a funeral with a protest that does not even have anything to do with the funeral itself. Seriously, this law is not about restricting free speech, it is about decency and respect for those who are mourning the death of a loved one. I mean, all this law does is to forbid any kind of protest on and around a graveyard for 60 minutes before and after a funeral. I'm sure there are still plenty of places where Phelps can spread his hate in the meantime.

This law may be about decency and respect for those mourning death, however it can set precident limiting protests and speech in other situations.

Preventing this type of speech/protest is a slippery slope that is best left untouched.

[Jesuslove]

This law may be about decency and respect for those mourning death, however it can set precident limiting protests and speech in other situations.

Preventing this type of speech/protest is a slippery slope that is best left untouched.
I believe the law is very specific, and justified. I believe in free speech, but 99.9% of people would agree there is no benefit from this expression of free speech.

[cheewiee]

I believe the law is very specific, and justified. I believe in free speech, but 99.9% of people would agree there is no benefit from this expression of free speech.

It's not... ANY government encroachment on free speech other than that which IMMEDIATLY puts people in danger (The proverbial Yelling fire in a crowded building) is WRONG, flat out.

What happens when 99.9% people belive that there is no benefit from say saying "Praise Jesus". Speech is either free or it's not. Anytime we start puting "Justifiable" limits on it, we go from being a freedom loving Democracy to a police state.

I am HONESTLY EXTREMLY Supprised that of all the people on this board, you support this.... Usualy I find myself agreeing with Liberals on issues of Free speech...

[stratguy1]

:mad: Why is there even a discussion here? Have we lost our minds? These soldiers have died in the name of FREE SPEECH and FREEDOM. its because of them that these whackos can protest. but to do it at thier funerals. NO. NO WAY. This makes me hotter than anyhing on earth because they're over here protesting and soldiers are in war. theyre on the front lines so these whackos can sleep at night. congress made the right call. normally im a nice guy, but if u disagree, ur wrong. there is no gray here. free speech is free but that doesnt mean its w/o consequences. can u yell fire in a movie theater when thers not? Give these fighting men some respect. You DO NOT protest at thier funerals. that is WRONG!!!! And then the second thing that makes me hotter than hades is when they preach hate in God's name. have they never heard hate the sin love the sinner. i cant stand the thought of homosexuality but to tell them god hates them? come on! im sorry for the long post but im very passionate on this.

[Jesuslove]

:mad: Why is there even a discussion here? Have we lost our minds? These soldiers have died in the name of FREE SPEECH and FREEDOM. its because of them that these whackos can protest. but to do it at thier funerals. NO. NO WAY. This makes me hotter than anyhing on earth because they're over here protesting and soldiers are in war. theyre on the front lines so these whackos can sleep at night. congress made the right call. normally im a nice guy, but if u disagree, ur wrong. there is no gray here. free speech is free but that doesnt mean its w/o consequences. can u yell fire in a movie theater when thers not? Give these fighting men some respect. You DO NOT protest at thier funerals. that is WRONG!!!! And then the second thing that makes me hotter than hades is when they preach hate in God's name. have they never heard hate the sin love the sinner. im sorry for the long post but im very passionate on this.
I agree. I am liberal on most issues but this is one issue in which I side with the conservatives. Enough already Mr. Phelps. When I first posted this thread, I thought for sure we'd ALL be on the same page. I'm surprised anyone believes Freddie should have the right to picket funerals. Freddie's actions are beyond evil and hateful.

[cheewiee]

Why is there even a discussion here? Have we lost our minds? These soldiers have died in the name of FREE SPEECH and FREEDOM. its because of them that these whackos can protest.

That is EXCATLY and PRECICLY why I am against this bill. These Soldiers DIED in the name of Free Speech, and it is a slap in the face of those who have sacrificed themselves for this nation to limit it, just because we find it detestable...

You either have free speech or not. The only Valid limitations come in when excercise of free speech can put people in immediate danger, such as yelling fire in a crowded building.. Anything else other than that small limitation means that each and every soldier that has given his life for the concept of America a life lost in vein.

In order for Speech to be free, it HAS TO BE free from consequense by the Government. This principle is one of the founding cornerstones of our bill of rights. To begin to undermind this one cornerstone, even to stop obviously dispicable displays of speech and protest, still undermines it. It is a slippery slope that will lead to a government that will prevent Churches from preaching Against Sin, in the name of Tolerance...

[cheewiee]

I agree. I am liberal on most issues but this is one issue in which I side with the conservatives. Enough already Mr. Phelps. When I first posted this thread, I thought for sure we'd ALL be on the same page. I'm surprised anyone believes Freddie should have the right to picket funerals. Freddie's actions are beyond evil and hateful.

Freddie's actions are beyond evil and hateful, and with that you have my TOTAL agreement. But to sit by and watch our congressional leaders undermine the first amendment, is to me an even greater Evil.

[stratguy1]

protesting at a military funeral is a valid limitation! i agree w/ the free speech part. you should not limit it. but any sensable person who has any respect for the freedoms given to him not only by the military, but by God!should know not to protyest at a funeral. God was gracious enough to birth them in the US of A. and they want to protest against the people who secure that freedom?? maybe im just conservative, maybe im just a country boy, or a redneck, whatever, but where i come from you DONT DO THAT! This is wrong. plain and simple.

[cheewiee]

protesting at a military funeral is a valid limitation! i agree w/ the free speech part. you should not limit it. but any sensable person who has any respect for the freedoms given to him not only by the military, but by God!should know not to protyest at a funeral. God was gracious enough to birth them in the US of A. and they want to protest against the people who secure that freedom?? maybe im just conservative, maybe im just a country boy, or a redneck, whatever, but where i come from you DONT DO THAT! This is wrong. plain and simple.

Protesting a soldiers funeral is WRONG... I don't disagree... but we don't limit speech based on weather it is right or wrong do we? We afford Skinheads, and racists the rights to free speech regardless of the fact that it is wrong.

First most of these protests can be delt with in an orderly fashion, by the private owners of the cemetaries stopping these goons from coming on their property.

But regardless... In order to ensure the Freedom of Speech for our children, is to not undermine it. This bill if left unchallenged and not overturned by SCOTUS represents disaster for anyone who believes in the Freedom of Speech. This bill as precident could mean that anytime our society finds speech or protest disgusting, the ability to stop it, close it down. What happens when society finds what you are saying or protesting disgusting?

[stratguy1]

lets just agree to disagree. i agree w/ everything u said except the bill is wrong. i dont feel like arguing anymore. you said, "First most of these protests can be delt with in an orderly fashion, by the private owners of the cemetaries stopping these goons from coming on their property." that is what the bill is doing nothing more. they can protest thier little demented hearts out in disrespect for our country but just not while the funeral is there. i see nothing wrong w/ this bill. my 2 cent. im out. as Paul Harvey would say, "Good Day!"

[cheewiee]

lets just agree to disagree. i agree w/ everything u said except the bill is wrong. i dont feel like arguing anymore. you said, "First most of these protests can be delt with in an orderly fashion, by the private owners of the cemetaries stopping these goons from coming on their property." that is what the bill is doing nothing more. they can protest thier little demented hearts out in disrespect for our country but just not while the funeral is there. i see nothing wrong w/ this bill. my 2 cent. im out. as Paul Harvey would say, "Good Day!"

There is a WORLD of difference between a private owner from telling somone they are not welcome on their property, and the government saying, This form of protest is illegal.

I am completly and utterly unwilling to give the Government any say as what I can say and how I can protest.... I don't trust our Government and our leaders to say This far and no further... Do you? Obviously the founding fathers didn't, or they wouldn't have included Freedom of Speech in the Bill of Rights... Unfettered and unrestricted speech is vital to the survival of any democracy, and to cut it in any way shape or form is just like knicking an artery... If left untended, the subject will die.

In the words of my Fav. Fictional Liberal President Andrew Sheppard..
America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've got to want it bad, because it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil who is standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the 'land of the free'? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the 'land of the free.'"

[TheBus36(Retired)]

I don't agree with flag burning, however, The great thing that makes our country what it is, is the fact you have that right due to millions giving their life freely so you could have that right. However, for those of you who think this is dangerous ground and a possible avenue to a further, and wider scope of rights abolishment, think about your response the next time you have a family member pass, and what it would be like if a group such as this showed up in mass at Uncle Joe's funeral protesting something Uncle Joe did in the past that this group didn't agree with, or in their opinion thought moraly wrong. I'm willing to bet your desire to protect everyone's right to free speech might be swayed, just a little. Especially when you see the reaction of your family members, to include Uncle Joe's wife and children, brothers and sisters, etc.

[cheewiee]

I don't agree with flag burning, however, The great thing that makes our country what it is, is the fact you have that right due to millions giving their life freely so you could have that right. However, for those of you who think this is dangerous ground and a possible avenue to a further, and wider scope of rights abolishment, think about your response the next time you have a family member pass, and what it would be like if a group such as this showed up in mass at Uncle Joe's funeral protesting something Uncle Joe did in the past that this group didn't agree with, or in their opinion thought moraly wrong. I'm willing to bet your desire to protect everyone's right to free speech might be swayed, just a little. Especially when you see the reaction of your family members, to include Uncle Joe's wife and children, brothers and sisters, etc.

I am not saying it's right, don't get me wrong... It's disgusting, reprehensable, morally bankrupt, misguided...

I could go on forever about how this form of protest is gross... I agree that it shouldn't happen, however, I must go further to say that as disgusting as this form of protest is, It is an egregious violation of the first amendment to pass legislation to prevent it... This bill violates every principle that these soldiers gave their life for, and to me the bill itself dishonors there memory far more than those idiots who protest...

[TheBus36(Retired)]

I am not saying it's right, don't get me wrong... It's disgusting, reprehensable, morally bankrupt, misguided...

I could go on forever about how this form of protest is gross... I agree that it shouldn't happen, however, I must go further to say that as disgusting as this form of protest is, It is an egregious violation of the first amendment to pass legislation to prevent it... This bill violates every principle that these soldiers gave their life for, and to me the bill itself dishonors there memory far more than those idiots who protest...

I see your point, and from a basic, legalistic and objective view of the constitution you're right. I can understand how you feel simply because I feel the same way about flag burning, however, I just can't push myself this far to accept this based on the argument if we pass legislation prohibiting such acts then we are opening the door to put a strangle hold on other 1st Amendment Rights. Our rights of free speech are very broad, as they should be, however, at what point do we, as human beings and believers say, wait a minute, free speech is one thing, but stupidity and disrespect are another?

For those families of the fallen warrior, who gave their lives to protect these very rights, don't they have the right not to have these morons show up at their son's funeral? Being former military, I try to be as objective as I can with issues like these. Like I said previously, flag burning turns my stomach, but, that's what makes us who we are. It's a shame these folks can't see past the nose on their faces that if it were not for the individual, and countless others they are protesting, they wouldn't have these rights at all.

[cheewiee]

I see your point, and from a basic, legalistic and objective view of the constitution you're right. I can understand how you feel simply because I feel the same way about flag burning, however, I just can't push myself this far to accept this based on the argument if we pass legislation prohibiting such acts then we are opening the door to put a strangle hold on other 1st Amendment Rights. Our rights of free speech are very broad, as they should be, however, at what point do we, as human beings and believers say, wait a minute, free speech is one thing, but stupidity and disrespect are another?

For those families of the fallen warrior, who gave their lives to protect these very rights, don't they have the right not to have these morons show up at their son's funeral? Being former military, I try to be as objective as I can with issues like these. Like I said previously, flag burning turns my stomach, but, that's what makes us who we are. It's a shame these folks can't see past the nose on their faces that if it were not for the individual, and countless others they are protesting, they wouldn't have these rights at all.

There are ways around preventing this, without legislating against it..

First, in private Cemeteries, they can refuse admittance to anyone they choose...

Second, in Public Cemetaries, they can demand protesters to obtain a permit, and as such the governing authority could institute a policy where no protesting permits can be issued on days of funerals...

Both of these methods are already in place in accordance to established law that could be used to prevent these protests from happening... Or atleast in preventing this guy in causing undue stress on the greving family

Third, those of us that are disgusted at this kind of behavior could be more proactive in helping the greving family by establishing human barriers between the grieving family and the protesters...

What I am diametricly opposed to, is congress establishing a law limiting free speech... and ultimatly thats what the core of this bill is...

[TheBus36(Retired)]

There are ways around preventing this, without legislating against it..

First, in private Cemeteries, they can refuse admittance to anyone they choose...

Second, in Public Cemetaries, they can demand protesters to obtain a permit, and as such the governing authority could institute a policy where no protesting permits can be issued on days of funerals...

Both of these methods are already in place in accordance to established law that could be used to prevent these protests from happening... Or atleast in preventing this guy in causing undue stress on the greving family

Third, those of us that are disgusted at this kind of behavior could be more proactive in helping the greving family by establishing human barriers between the grieving family and the protesters...

What I am diametricly opposed to, is congress establishing a law limiting free speech... and ultimatly thats what the core of this bill is...

I supose we could limit the issuance of permits, but we both know people who feel this strongly will do it anyhow regardless if they are hauled in for it or not.

Why should we, as a show of support, form a barrier to protect the grieving family. I go back to one of my points earlier, shouldn't that family have the right for this not to even happen.

I think this is where we really disagree, I don't really think there is a problem with putting a limit on certain rights of free speech. I truly can appreciate your feelings on this, and don't necessarily think you are wrong. Your base point is valid. But.............at some point in time common sense, respect and understanding has to come into play. Personally, I would like to go to one of these funerals and smack each and every protester in the back of the head with a shovel (Yip, can I say that?):D

I think you really have to be able to draw the line somewhere, but as you point out drawing a line anywhere is problematic relative to opening the door to further limiting of the 1st Amendment Rights.

Okay, I know this is going to open a HUGE can of worms here, but the only reason I throw it out is the fact that you seem very sensible and have articulated your very strong beliefs in a wonderful manner.

What about terrorism, to me, this is nothing more than the bully up the street terrorizing the poor defensless 90 lb shy kid. I think this could be construed as an act of terrorism simply because of the nature of the protests, and the fact that it is so intimidating to those who are there grieving and simply may not have the fight in them to respond at that particular moment.

[Sam!]

There are ways around preventing this, without legislating against it..

First, in private Cemeteries, they can refuse admittance to anyone they choose...

Second, in Public Cemetaries, they can demand protesters to obtain a permit, and as such the governing authority could institute a policy where no protesting permits can be issued on days of funerals...

Both of these methods are already in place in accordance to established law that could be used to prevent these protests from happening... Or atleast in preventing this guy in causing undue stress on the greving family

Third, those of us that are disgusted at this kind of behavior could be more proactive in helping the greving family by establishing human barriers between the grieving family and the protesters...

What I am diametricly opposed to, is congress establishing a law limiting free speech... and ultimatly thats what the core of this bill is...
You say that any abridgement of free speech is an abomination. I remind you that is an opinion and you are entitled to it. It is not a fact or a universal truth.

I remind you that there are other prohibitions on speech that do not involve the immediate danger of harm... My doctor cannot release my medical information without my consent, for example.

Why shouldn't our government stand up against something? The prohibition does not target a specific political group, religion, or race.

By your logic... if dying for free speech is so noble, and if free speech itself is such a precious thing, then why should it be a crime to yell "Fire!" in a crowded building? Shouldn't those innocent bystanders be martyrs in the name of free speech?

In this case, nobody is losing their rights to hold an opinion or to voice it. The rights of the minority are not being trampled. If anything, an aggressive and powerful minority (in the sense that they have all the power to ruin a sacred moment) is being redirected to a more appropriate venue.

[SacredHeart]

I don't see this as a law limiting free speech. It limits where and when people can protest, but not their right to protest.

Under the Senate bill, approved without objection by the House with no recorded vote, the "Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act" would bar protests within 300 feet of the entrance of a cemetery and within 150 feet of a road into the cemetery from 60 minutes before to 60 minutes after a funeral. Those violating the act would face up to a $100,000 fine and up to a year in prison.

[TheBus36(Retired)]

I don't see this as a law limiting free speech. It limits where and when people can protest, but not their right to protest.

After that statment, you might want to run and duck!!:D HAHAHAHAHAHA.

[SacredHeart]

After that statment, you might want to run and duck!!:D HAHAHAHAHAHA.
Why? Is somebody going to limit my rights to free speech? ;) :p

[TheBus36(Retired)]

Why? Is somebody going to limit my rights to free speech? ;) :p


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. That was great!!! Nope, I don't that will be happening in this one.

[SacredHeart]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. That was great!!! Nope, I don't that will be happening in this one.
Good...'cause I'd hate to have to lay the smack-down on somebody. *ducks and runs* ;) :p



Cheewiee is right to be concerned, though. It's a very fine line and one that should be guarded vigilantly.

[TheBus36(Retired)]

Good...'cause I'd hate to have to lay the smack-down on somebody. *ducks and runs* ;) :p



Cheewiee is right to be concerned, though. It's a very fine line and one that should be guarded vigilantly.


HAHAHAHAHA. I do agree with his principal. I really do. That is a very, very fine and scary line especially with some of the radicals we have in this country on both sides of the street.

[Healing Oil]

Personally, I would not mind it if the law would forbid *me* to disturb a funeral with a protest that does not even have anything to do with the funeral itself. Seriously, this law is not about restricting free speech, it is about decency and respect for those who are mourning the death of a loved one. I mean, all this law does is to forbid any kind of protest on and around a graveyard for 60 minutes before and after a funeral. I'm sure there are still plenty of places where Phelps can spread his hate in the meantime.
I agree completely!

Like you said, I dont believe it is a matter of restricting free speech, it is about decency and respect.

Well said.

[WeaselInYerFoot]

I'm gonna have to agree with Cheewiee on this one.

Freedom has a price, not only the sacrifice of soldiers but of our lifestyles as well. Price of freedom also involves tolerance - not acceptance - but tolerance. It's sickening I know. But freedom shouldn't tailor to one particular way of life.

[cheewiee]

...Personally, I would like to go to one of these funerals and smack each and every protester in the back of the head with a shovel (Yip, can I say that?):D

And I will be more than happy to join you... :D

There used to be a time when people really deserved to get smacked, the authorities would turn their heads the other direction...

I think you really have to be able to draw the line somewhere, but as you point out drawing a line anywhere is problematic relative to opening the door to further limiting of the 1st Amendment Rights.

Okay, I know this is going to open a HUGE can of worms here, but the only reason I throw it out is the fact that you seem very sensible and have articulated your very strong beliefs in a wonderful manner.


I would like to live in a country where this didn't happen, Yes... My concern is that when we accept this ban, which seems really reasonable, what happens the next time somone finds something completly objectionable and reprehensable...

Right now the Hate Speech laws in Canada have been so misconstrued that a Pastor was charged with a Hate crime simply from reading a certain part in Romans where it talks about Homosexuality being wrong..


What about terrorism, to me, this is nothing more than the bully up the street terrorizing the poor defensless 90 lb shy kid. I think this could be construed as an act of terrorism simply because of the nature of the protests, and the fact that it is so intimidating to those who are there grieving and simply may not have the fight in them to respond at that particular moment.

Ultimatly speech is speech... There is nothing violent about speech... These Parents should be proud that their kids helped protect these idiots rights to be idiots...

Quite frankly, I in principle agree that this shouldn't happen... but I would rather this retarded group of 120 individuals be able to picket and protest, to prevent rights from being abridged...

There are ways through the Executive branch (Permitting and such) that could be used to curb this and keep it to a minimum, ATLEAST from occuring from within the cemetary itself, that are already in place... so why not go through those avenues first...

[cheewiee]

You say that any abridgement of free speech is an abomination. I remind you that is an opinion and you are entitled to it. It is not a fact or a universal truth.

I remind you that there are other prohibitions on speech that do not involve the immediate danger of harm... My doctor cannot release my medical information without my consent, for example.

Or a court order, And that only exists because your right to privacy trumps his right to Free Speech... You have your rights as long as they don't abridge somone elses rights... If you REALLY want to put this to a stop, pass an amendment to guarantee the right to peacefull mourning... Yes I know that sounds silly but atleast then it took not just an act of congress, but an act of 3/4's of the states legislatures to make it go through...

Why shouldn't our government stand up against something? The prohibition does not target a specific political group, religion, or race.

It does target a specific political group... that's exactly what it does, it targets the Westburo Baptist Church.... and while None of us agree with their theology or their meathods or their maddness for that matter, keep in mind that one day it could be the First Baptist Church of (Your town here) that says or does something people find unpopular.. (Like Preaching against sin)...

By your logic... if dying for free speech is so noble, and if free speech itself is such a precious thing, then why should it be a crime to yell "Fire!" in a crowded building? Shouldn't those innocent bystanders be martyrs in the name of free speech?
Because at that point you excercising your right to free speech tramples other peoples rights....
In this case, nobody is losing their rights to hold an opinion or to voice it. The rights of the minority are not being trampled. If anything, an aggressive and powerful minority (in the sense that they have all the power to ruin a sacred moment) is being redirected to a more appropriate venue.

The problem is, how would you define a "more appropriate venue". That is something that the lawmakers have taken on for themselves. And I am sorry if you trust our lawmakers to decide the appropriateness of one of the fundamental freedoms in this nation... I don't!

[cheewiee]

I don't see this as a law limiting free speech. It limits where and when people can protest, but not their right to protest.

But the constitution doesn't give COTUS that power...

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.

First, let me point out, the Amendment that they are messing around with, is what gives you and I the right to worship God as we see fit... As I said, there are already a number of Countries in this world that have passed Hate Speech Legislation. Legislation directed towards believers from speaking the truth about certain bondages of Sin...

To me this bill is nothing more than a stepping stone to that... A bill of which is already floating around the House Of Representatives. I am sorry for those people that have to deal with these Idiots, and I will offer them my support in any way possible, except for this.

[TheBus36(Retired)]

[QUOTE=cheewiee]
It does target a specific political group... that's exactly what it does, it targets the Westburo Baptist Church.... and while None of us agree with their theology or their meathods or their maddness for that matter, keep in mind that one day it could be the First Baptist Church of (Your town here) that says or does something people find unpopular.. (Like Preaching against sin)...
QUOTE]

That is a great point!!

Maybe we should call Pat and get his opinion:eek: (Sorry):rolleyes:

[cheewiee]

That is a great point!!

Maybe we should call Pat and get his opinion:eek: (Sorry):rolleyes:

I know you ment that in Jest... but seriously.. You have brought up a great point... We have Dr. James Dobson, somone who just 10-15 years ago was viewed as Mainstream, painted into being this fundamentalist whackjob.. who some view as being on par with Fred Phelps... Simply because he Preaches Homosexuality is sin...

[TheBus36(Retired)]

I know you ment that in Jest... but seriously.. You have brought up a great point... We have Dr. James Dobson, somone who just 10-15 years ago was viewed as Mainstream, painted into being this fundamentalist whackjob.. who some view as being on par with Fred Phelps... Simply because he Preaches Homosexuality is sin...

Actually, your point about it could possibly happen to any one of us or our respective churches was a great point, I wasn't kidding there. I was joking about Pat Robertson. I didn't know that thought existed about Dr. Dobson.

[cheewiee]

Actually, your point about it could possibly happen to any one of us or our respective churches was a great point, I wasn't kidding there. I was joking about Pat Robertson. I didn't know that thought existed about Dr. Dobson.

That attitude is definatly out there about Dobson... Just go read one of Mike's recent posts...

I hate defending what these folks are doing... I really do... I don't want them to do it... but the way I see it, is the only way for me to make sure I can say what I want, assemble where I want, is to make sure EVERYONE ELSE has that right...

[TheBus36(Retired)]

That attitude is definatly out there about Dobson... Just go read one of Mike's recent posts...

I hate defending what these folks are doing... I really do... I don't want them to do it... but the way I see it, is the only way for me to make sure I can say what I want, assemble where I want, is to make sure EVERYONE ELSE has that right...

It's just a shame we have to tolerate something like this to ensure our rights are not taken away.

[cheewiee]

It's just a shame we have to tolerate something like this to ensure our rights are not taken away.

But like WeaselInYerFoot said, its part of the Price of freedom...

I wish there were another way, but I just don't see it... That's why I like that line from The American President... Because it simply points out... free speech isn't truly free unless your willing to let the man whos words make your blood boil ring out...

It is because of this that has enabled our democracy to last 200 and 30 years...

[HotWireD]

I'm gonna have to agree with Cheewiee on this one.

Freedom has a price, not only the sacrifice of soldiers but of our lifestyles as well. Price of freedom also involves tolerance - not acceptance - but tolerance. It's sickening I know. But freedom shouldn't tailor to one particular way of life.

I have to agree with Weasel and Cheewiee on this one too.

I know I live in Europe, but one of the things I respect about the US is the Constitution. You let the US Government 'adjust' it and you may find it is the thin edge of the wedge....

What these protesters are doing is reprehensible, but who is to say that the government is not using their example and offensive behaviour to bring in tighter laws that will effect all of you?

I have seen laws created in the United Kingdom where the examples of why we needed them was to prevent certain named groups from existing anbd behaving the way they do...

Several years down the line other groups have discovered that these same laws also effect them.

Maybe people need to stand outside these protesters homes and protest against them, let them know just how decent citizens view them....

It's just a shame we have to tolerate something like this to ensure our rights are not taken away.

Totally in agreement here too :(

[TheBus36(Retired)]

Maybe people need to stand outside these protesters homes and protest against them, let them know just how decent citizens view them....

Totally in agreement here too :(

I smell road trip!!!!!!!!!!!! Let's hold our own protest!!!!!!!:D


I didn't know you were in the UK. That's an interesting perspective. I don't think you guys are wrong, I guess what it boils down to for me is the fact I just don't like that these idiots have free speech to be so hateful.

[Jesuslove]

I know you ment that in Jest... but seriously.. You have brought up a great point... We have Dr. James Dobson, somone who just 10-15 years ago was viewed as Mainstream, painted into being this fundamentalist whackjob.. who some view as being on par with Fred Phelps... Simply because he Preaches Homosexuality is sin...
I don't view Mr. Dobson as being mainstream. I've read exerpts from his book. To me, Billy Graham is a role model.

[cheewiee]

I don't view Mr. Dobson as being mainstream. I've read exerpts from his book. To me, Billy Graham is a role model.

Excactly... my point! 10-15 years ago, Mr. Dobson was considered to be mainstream...

[cheewiee]

I smell road trip!!!!!!!!!!!! Let's hold our own protest!!!!!!!:D


I didn't know you were in the UK. That's an interesting perspective. I don't think you guys are wrong, I guess what it boils down to for me is the fact I just don't like that these idiots have free speech to be so hateful.

I don't like it either... but our country is not great because of the rights afforded to the politically correct Majority, it is great however because of the rights afforded to the politically incorrect minority...

This isn't to say we shoulnd't try to find ways to discourage him, or stop him, but we shouldn't do it with the Constitution underfoot like this bill does...

[Evanescence]

:mad: I need to join in on this one, being the Govt hating troll I am....:D

This is clearly an abuse of the Constitution and our rights by this kook. He should not only be banned but imprisoned for his crimes of hate. I think this case shows the safeguards built into the constitution, safeguards from the ABUSE of our rights.

Take away this kooks kids and get him some help before he hurts someone. Not to mention creating a bad image for Christians.

Another extremist.....a detriment to the kingdom!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

PS...Does this goof have a website? I gotta see this....

[cheewiee]

:mad: I need to join in on this one, being the Govt hating troll I am....:D

This is clearly an abuse of the Constitution and our rights by this kook. He should not only be banned but imprisoned for his crimes of hate. I think this case shows the safeguards built into the constitution, safeguards from the ABUSE of our rights.

Take away this kooks kids and get him some help before he hurts someone. Not to mention creating a bad image for Christians.

Another extremist.....a detriment to the kingdom!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

PS...Does this goof have a website? I gotta see this....

Do a lookup on Fred Phelps..

But regardless as to weather you or I belive he is abusing his rights it doesn't matter...

As far as banning him and jailing him for expressing his rights that's absoultuly 100!% WRONG...

[jwil59]

I am not taking either side but the first amendment does not apply in certain situations, like yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. This is the best I can do for now but this is an exert from a court decesion regarding free speech in a time of war:

The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. It seems to be admitted that if an actual obstruction of the recruiting service were proved, liability for words that produced that effect might be enforced.

[Jesuslove]

:mad: I need to join in on this one, being the Govt hating troll I am....:D

This is clearly an abuse of the Constitution and our rights by this kook. He should not only be banned but imprisoned for his crimes of hate. I think this case shows the safeguards built into the constitution, safeguards from the ABUSE of our rights.

Take away this kooks kids and get him some help before he hurts someone. Not to mention creating a bad image for Christians.

Another extremist.....a detriment to the kingdom!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

PS...Does this goof have a website? I gotta see this....
his website is www.godhatesfags.com

[Mr.Elwood]

I stopped reading half-way through this thread.. Frankly I’m shocked. So many professing Faithful allowing their feelings and emotions to drive them to become self-righteous over an issue they have nothing to do with, and then to allow the government to use this issue to set a foundation for stripping ANY group determine to be hateful of their right to assemble and protest.

(My apologies to you, and your family, if your are reading this and were part of one of those protested families.. Real Faithful Christians don’t act like that!)

Let’s use common sense first…. Deny them access to private property – they’ll get frustrated and do stupid things then you simply arrest them for public disturbance and haul them away for a few hours, fine then $250 bucks per person - per incident and they will either go away or go bankrupt (isn’t that why we have a police force and public nuisance laws??). Now the protest has been squashed and no rights have been shredded or violated (while achieving the goal of the family being protected); and best of all, there will be no political grandstanding or stupid media blitz giving more air time to those professing christians who protest for the sake of attention. They will be treated, and seen, as crazy everyday fanatics that need jail time and not the media darlings seeking attention they now enjoy.

Now for all you who feel the need to protect others from the voices of the insane.. here is your scenario..

Woman testifying before congress: “Those protesters hunted me down, they barraged me with insults an hate speech. I felt paralyzed with fear because of their actions.. I feared for my safety they were so crazed.. What are you congressman going to do to protect me from the crazies? I demand that someone stop them… sooner or later they are going to hurt someone”

Her argument?

Getting an abortion at Planned Parenthood.. Now, are you going to argue that “Free Speech” be restricted to certain times at certain events…etc??

See, why it’s nice to get all emotional… that is when people that do not have your best interests at heart, or this countries freedoms at heart, make subtle changes to suit themselves for personal gain and power.

Before we let the government step in and restrict our rights and freedoms because we succumb to our heart strings, that have been plucked and played by a media bent on more power and cozy relationship with politicians, why not take a deep breathe and look for simpler solutions that nullify the problem while not generating all the sensationalist PR for political spin, and a doorway for local politicians to take unfettered unilateral civil action when enough whiners think that your Jesus Day in the park is hate speech and feel your right to assemble needs to be restricted.

Just my thoughts anyway.. and I understand I’m in the minority on this one..

[cheewiee]

I stopped reading half-way through this thread.. Frankly I’m shocked. So many professing Faithful allowing their feelings and emotions to drive them to become self-righteous over an issue they have nothing to do with, and then to allow the government to use this issue to set a foundation for stripping ANY group determine to be hateful of their right to assemble and protest.

(My apologies to you, and your family, if your are reading this and were part of one of those protested families.. Real Faithful Christians don’t act like that!)

Let’s use common sense first…. Deny them access to private property – they’ll get frustrated and do stupid things then you simply arrest them for public disturbance and haul them away for a few hours, fine then $250 bucks per person - per incident and they will either go away or go bankrupt (isn’t that why we have a police force and public nuisance laws??). Now the protest has been squashed and no rights have been shredded or violated (while achieving the goal of the family being protected); and best of all, there will be no political grandstanding or stupid media blitz giving more air time to those professing christians who protest for the sake of attention. They will be treated, and seen, as crazy everyday fanatics that need jail time and not the media darlings seeking attention they now enjoy.

Now for all you who feel the need to protect others from the voices of the insane.. here is your scenario..

Woman testifying before congress: “Those protesters hunted me down, they barraged me with insults an hate speech. I felt paralyzed with fear because of their actions.. I feared for my safety they were so crazed.. What are you congressman going to do to protect me from the crazies? I demand that someone stop them… sooner or later they are going to hurt someone”

Her argument?

Getting an abortion at Planned Parenthood.. Now, are you going to argue that “Free Speech” be restricted to certain times at certain events…etc??

See, why it’s nice to get all emotional… that is when people that do not have your best interests at heart, or this countries freedoms at heart, make subtle changes to suit themselves for personal gain and power.

Before we let the government step in and restrict our rights and freedoms because we succumb to our heart strings, that have been plucked and played by a media bent on more power and cozy relationship with politicians, why not take a deep breathe and look for simpler solutions that nullify the problem while not generating all the sensationalist PR for political spin, and a doorway for local politicians to take unfettered unilateral civil action when enough whiners think that your Jesus Day in the park is hate speech and feel your right to assemble needs to be restricted.

Just my thoughts anyway.. and I understand I’m in the minority on this one..

:Applauds:

Thank you VERY MUCH!

[Sam!]

But that's just it... it isn't a political issue. It is a decency issue. Again, their right to speak freely is not being abridged. But they're not speaking, they are (figuratively) yelling, abusing the first amendment in a manner that is contrary to decency. Again, the law is not targeting a political group. Personally, I think those who have given their lives in the defense of this country (no matter how they died while a member of the armed forces) should have certain rights that trump the rights of others for a an hour or two once in a lifetime.

Look--the law doesn't prohibit or penalize somebody for saying something. I do not have the right to walk out of my apartment, grap some 10,000 watt sound equipment and yell my political opinions to the detriment of those living in my apartment neighborhood. Fred Phelps is welcome to print his opinions, or say them in a publicly decent manner. In a forum, on a street corner, in his church, to his friends, etc. AT A FUNERAL IS NOT APPROPRIATE and I do not understand why ANYBODY needs that right.

People keep bringing up the "slippery slope"... but we already have laws that limit "free speech" in certain cases and the country did not collapse in on itself.

I believe an occasional law like this works to preserve free speech. Because if you allow everyone to abuse it any time and anywhere, you will end up with anarchy and there will be nothign left to preserve. This is not anti-government speech, this is not hate speech, they are not legislating opinions. They are moderating ONE expression of opinions.

Let's say you die with the reputation of someone who is a pro-life activist. Do you want a few hundred pro-babymurder folks to show up at your funeral, protesting YOU as a human being? Do you want them tormenting your family? Should our government protect them--is that what you want our society to stand for?

[Mr.Elwood]

Let's say you die with the reputation of someone who is a pro-life activist. Do you want a few hundred pro-babymurder folks to show up at your funeral, protesting YOU as a human being? Do you want them tormenting your family? Should our government protect them--is that what you want our society to stand for?
They won't be invited and to trespass into private property means getting arrested.. I don't need the Feds protection... I need everyone else to stand up and stop being cowards and waiting for the Fed to do everything for them.

[Jesuslove]

Let's say you die with the reputation of someone who is a pro-life activist. Do you want a few hundred pro-babymurder folks to show up at your funeral, protesting YOU as a human being? Do you want them tormenting your family? Should our government protect them--is that what you want our society to stand for?
First of all, they are called pro-choice, not pro-babymurderer. Second, I don't see a need to protest ANYONE in death. For what purpose?

[cheewiee]

First of all, they are called pro-choice, not pro-babymurderer. Second, I don't see a need to protest ANYONE in death. For what purpose?

Hmm...Lets look at this logicly...

If A = B, and B = C then A = C

Pro-Choice = Advocation of the right to aborition

Abortion = Baby Murder

Then I can only asume that Pro-Choice is a stance that advocates the right to murder babies... hence making them pro-babymurder....

And it doens't matter that you fail to see a need to protest somone in death... What if the majority of people fail to see a need for you to protest something specific.. by enacting this law, and if it goes unchallenged it sets up the ability for congress to usurp some of your rights that you have right now that at somepoint some majority in the future may think you don't need...

[Sam!]

The problem is the manner in which they are protesting is making it personal, not public. Jesuslove, you can call them what you want, I'll call them what I want, k?

Cheewiee, when the government crosses a line, then I will stand up and say 'no!' To me, this doesn't cross that line.

When the anti-abortion folks protested on one of the large gathering places on campus, I used to go around because I didn't care for huge posters depicting aborted babies. This isn't a protest, it's an aggressive invasion of a FUNERAL. Sometimes you have to take a narrow look at a situation instead of teh big picture... Jesus didn't say "anyone who wants to follow me must sell all they own and give all they have to the poor." He told the rich young man to sell what he had and come follow him... we all have to give up whatever is holding us back... anyway what I am saying is the whole point of codifying laws is to do two things: enforce some kind of morality, and protect the lives and property of citizens. If I personally feel that it is my right to have sex with whoever I want whenever I want, it doesn't matter. Our society says that is not true by enacting legislation that makes rape a crime. I might personally feel that paying taxes invades my privacy, but in order to protect the lives of everyone I pay taxes to support the government. If we said "you only have to follow YOUR code of decency" we would have chaos! Or, "you only have to pay taxes if you agree with it"... we wouldn't be able tos upport an army to defend our country.

THis is not a well thoguht out post but I'm about to leave town so it's all you get.

[cheewiee]

The problem is the manner in which they are protesting is making it personal, not public. Jesuslove, you can call them what you want, I'll call them what I want, k?

Cheewiee, when the government crosses a line, then I will stand up and say 'no!' To me, this doesn't cross that line.

I understand what your saying... And I agree, that in this particular instance it may not cross that line... My problem is if this passes, and remains unchallenged, or at worst upheld by legal challenge, then what happens next time when somone believes that there should be a ban that may cross the line...

The only way to guarantee that we have our rights to free speech and free assembly, is to go the extra mile and ensure that even nutjobs like this have their rights. I don't like it any more than you, but to me it is a necessary evil.

When the anti-abortion folks protested on one of the large gathering places on campus, I used to go around because I didn't care for huge posters depicting aborted babies. This isn't a protest, it's an aggressive invasion of a FUNERAL. Sometimes you have to take a narrow look at a situation instead of teh big picture... Jesus didn't say "anyone who wants to follow me must sell all they own and give all they have to the poor." He told the rich young man to sell what he had and come follow him... we all have to give up whatever is holding us back... anyway what I am saying is the whole point of codifying laws is to do two things: enforce some kind of morality, and protect the lives and property of citizens. If I personally feel that it is my right to have sex with whoever I want whenever I want, it doesn't matter. Our society says that is not true by enacting legislation that makes rape a crime.

You see, your right to have sex with anyone you want, then crosses over somone elses right to not have sex with somone they don't... Your rights cannot usurp theres...

I might personally feel that paying taxes invades my privacy, but in order to protect the lives of everyone I pay taxes to support the government.

I hate to brake it to you, but the Constitution says otherwise.

Amendment XVI
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.


The way around this is for the owners of Private Cemetaries to enact their rights as property owners by kicking these fools out of the private cemetaries,
And for the National Park System to enact and enforce a policy that requires protesters to get permits for any protests on their grounds, and further that policy that Protest permits will not be issued on days of funerals...

Both of these meathods are already existing legal constitutional methods for achieving the intended purpose to diminish the effects of these protests around the immediate grave site... All the while keeping congress from passing a law which if upheld could be used to justify other laws that could abridge your and my rights as guaranteed by the 1st amendment to the constitution.

[Sam!]

You see, your right to have sex with anyone you want, then crosses over somone elses right to not have sex with somone they don't... Your rights cannot usurp theres... You are missing the point. The right to not have my property stolen, or to not be raped, etc. comes from the government. It's not a natural right--the vast majority of living things do not mate for life. It goes against natural impulses. But society says "this is wrong" and so enacts legislation. Invading a funeral is morally reprehensible, the SAME WAY that stifling freedom of thought or speech is reprehensible. Gotta go take the puppy outside...

[mat1583]

The right to not have my property stolen ... comes from the government.

Heh, yet the gov't can in fact steal your home to have commercial buildings built in place of it as long as it's, "For the good of the people." :rolleyes:

Sorry, totally random comment :)

-washboard

[cheewiee]

You are missing the point. The right to not have my property stolen, or to not be raped, etc. comes from the government. It's not a natural right--the vast majority of living things do not mate for life. It goes against natural impulses. But society says "this is wrong" and so enacts legislation. Invading a funeral is morally reprehensible, the SAME WAY that stifling freedom of thought or speech is reprehensible. Gotta go take the puppy outside...

I agree, that invading a funeral is morally reprehensible... the problem I have is that because at this moment in time, we find invading a funeral morally reprehensable, who's to say that in the future protesting an abortion clinic isn't morally reprehensable. I mean these ladies are trying to go have an abortion in privacy, right? What gives protesters the right to stand there and protest...

I have a problem letting the government pass this kind of law... If it were placed as an amendment into the constitution I would get behind it, because it would be specific, and have very little ramifications otherwise...

That is my problem with this bill....

[Jesuslove]

Hmm...Lets look at this logicly...

If A = B, and B = C then A = C

Pro-Choice = Advocation of the right to aborition

Abortion = Baby Murder
hmmmm....
So you would deny a woman whose life is in jeopardy the right to an abortion to save her own life? How pro-life is that?

[cheewiee]

hmmmm....
So you would deny a woman whose life is in jeopardy the right to an abortion to save her own life? How pro-life is that?

:rolleyes: You mean the 1 percent

[Jesuslove]

:rolleyes: You mean the 1 percent
whatever percent... you would deny that woman the right to live?

how about cases of rape or insest where the woman wants to opt out of a life of painful memories? I don't think the siutation is so simple.

[Gandalf]

whatever percent... you would deny that woman the right to live?
Abortion is pretty much never necessary to save the life of the mother, with the exception of ectopic pregnancies. It has never been illegal (and never will be illegal) to terminate such a pregnancy, as there is no chance of the baby surviving anyway. In late term cases where the mother could potentially die in childbirth, there's always the option of early delivery via Caesarian section, etc. It's not justifiable to kill the child intentionally just because the mother's life might be in danger.
How about cases of rape or insest where the woman wants to opt out of a life of painful memories? I don't think the siutation is so simple.
Rape and incest are terrible things, but they don't justify the murder of the child. Two wrongs don't make a right...

[jwil59]

Abortion is pretty much never necessary to save the life of the mother, with the exception of ectopic pregnancies. It has never been illegal (and never will be illegal) to terminate such a pregnancy, as there is no chance of the baby surviving anyway. In late term cases where the mother could potentially die in childbirth, there's always the option of early delivery via Caesarian section, etc. It's not justifiable to kill the child intentionally just because the mother's life might be in danger.

Rape and incest are terrible things, but they don't justify the murder of the child. Two wrongs don't make a right...

Right you are!! It isn't the child's fault her/his mother was raped.

[cheewiee]

whatever percent... you would deny that woman the right to live?

how about cases of rape or insest where the woman wants to opt out of a life of painful memories? I don't think the siutation is so simple.

Why do you sound like you are pro-choice?

I mean you have used every argument I have heard the world use against a Pro-life stance to argue your position, which is supposedly against abortion...

Let me ask you this, Straight out,

Jesuslove are you For or Against legalized abortion?

[Jesuslove]

Why do you sound like you are pro-choice?

I mean you have used every argument I have heard the world use against a Pro-life stance to argue your position, which is supposedly against abortion...

Let me ask you this, Straight out,

Jesuslove are you For or Against legalized abortion?
I am on the fence. I am definitely pro-life, however I feel we as Christians don't do our fair share to take care of kids in the system and unless we have a plan to deal with unwanted children, then why force women to have kids that won't be loved, nurtured, properly cared for. We as Christians need to step up and adopt these children. I strongly encourage middleclass families to adopt AA children. The system is overburdened with minority children, and from feedback I've already received on this site, it seems like Christians are more afraid of what their neighbor thinks (about the possibility of them adopting trans-racially) then they are concerned about what God thinks. Just my observation.

[Gandalf]

from feedback I've already received on this site, it seems like Christians are more afraid of what their neighbor thinks (about the possibility of them adopting trans-racially) then they are concerned about what God thinks. Just my observation.
How's that? I've not seen anyone say anything here that even suggests such an attitude.

[Jason]

From feedback I've already received on this site, it seems like Christians are more afraid of what their neighbor thinks (about the possibility of them adopting trans-racially) then they are concerned about what God thinks. Just my observation.

My pastor's family.

Brandon on the lower left is Native American (Ute). Trae on the lower right is African American. Both were drug babies. Jasmine (the girl) is half Caucasian and half Native American. The youngest Aaron is their natural born Caucasian son. They pulled three out of the system. Four if you count the fact that they are now foster parenting a mildly mentally disabled African American teen girl. The pastor's mixed family is one of the reasons I started attending my church.

[Jesuslove]

How's that? I've not seen anyone say anything here that even suggests such an attitude.
when I first posted on this site, I encountered a lot of opposition in particular from Christians in the southern states. Many said that *I* didn't understand. They would be rejected in their communities if they brought into their home, a child of a different race.

[ObiShawn]

unless we have a plan to deal with unwanted children, then why force women to have kids that won't be loved, nurtured, properly cared forSo in other words, let's kill them so that they won't be a financial burden? Whatever.

You keep saying we need a plan, so let me ask you for the fouth time, what do you suggest we do? Do you have any ideas for a solution to the problem? Or do you just want to gripe and complain?

[Jesuslove]

My pastor's family.

Brandon on the lower left is Native American (Ute). Trae on the lower right is African American. Both were drug babies. Jasmine (the girl) is half Caucasian and half Native American. The youngest Aaron is their natural born Caucasian son. They pulled three out of the system. Four if you count the fact that they are now foster parenting a mildly mentally disabled African American teen girl. The pastor's mixed family is one of the reasons I started attending my church.
Believe me, your pastor is the exception to the rule. And I will add.... GOD bless your pastor!!!! To me (on the surface), he's a shining example of what a Christian man should be.

[Gandalf]

when I first posted on this site, I encountered a lot of opposition in particular from Christians in the southern states. Many said that *I* didn't understand. They would be rejected in their communities if they brought into their home, a child of a different race.
I just went back and looked at the thread you're referring to. There was one couple that said they had considered, and rejected the idea of adopting a black child because they didn't want to bring the child into a situation where he'd be discriminated against, not because they feared being rejected themselves. They did not object to the idea, and did not object to adopting a child of a different race themselves, only thought it would be unfair to the child considering the culture where they lived. They were not coming out against the idea of interracial adoption. They were explaining to you why they had chosen not to do so themselves, after you asked if people would be willing to do so. That's a far cry from "a lot of opposition" and is not the selfish motivation you imply.
As far as adopting an African American child, my husband and I have discussed this in great depth. I know that what I'm about to say will probably get me labeled as a racist, but here goes. We decided it would be best for the child, based on where we live, not to adopt an African American child. To Scott and I, it wouldn't matter if the child was black, white, green or purple. But, we live in an area that has a very small percentage of African Americans. Scott used to teach in the local high school and saw how mean the other kids were to the African American kids that went there. In particular, there was one boy who was adopted by caucasian parents. He had a rough way to go because of it.

It's sad to say, but our area has a certain "pecking" order. Caucasions are at the top of the list, followed by asians, hispanic, and then African Americans. This is not to say that the asians and hispanics don't have a hard time too, but I percieve that they do get treated better. If we lived in a larger metro area, we would seriously look into adopting any child available. I just don't want to put a child through such hardships just because of my selfish need to be a parent.
When you challenged her to do so just to change the pecking order, her response was again not selfish:
Yes, many in my community do consider themselves Christian, but I don't have to answer for them. Just myself. And yes, I should do things to "challenge" the pecking order. But, in my effort to do so, why should I bring an innocent child into such turmoil? Why should I make a child my "cause"? I can just as easily challenge this pecking order by the way I treat all people. I'm not ashamed to be seen with people of a different skin tone or that look different than me. I'll gladly talk to all people and I try very hard not to judge people until I get to know them. Just because a person looks different is no reason to judge them. Fortunately, I've learned this lesson. Unfortunately, many others have not. It's not that I'm afraid of what people would say or do to me, I'm trying to think of the pain and torture the child would have to do through.
The other person who replied is part of an interracial marriage herself, and said how difficult it is for her family in the area they live in. She did not say that white people should not adopt black children; she said that it's wise to consider the way things are and only do so if you're prepared to help that child with the struggles they will face.

You're substantially misrepresenting what three people (a husband and wife in Kentucky, and another woman in Arkansas) said in a conversation almost two years ago, and making it out as if that misrepresentation is indicative of the attitude of the people on the boards at large. That's just ridiculous.

[Gandalf]

Believe me, your pastor is the exception to the rule. And I will add.... GOD bless your pastor!!!! To me (on the surface), he's a shining example of what a Christian man should be.
What rule, and why do you assume he's the exception?

[Jesuslove]

What rule, and why do you assume he's the exception?
If he wasn't the exception to the rule, than there would be no children in foster care or in orphanages in America.

As for your other point, I was PM'ed by others who expressed the same feelings / attitude. Some were embarassed to disucss the issue on the public board but did share with me that they felt they couldn't raise a child of a different race in their community.

[bholdj]

I just went back and looked at the thread you're referring to. There was one couple that said they had considered, and rejected the idea of adopting a black child because they didn't want to bring the child into a situation where he'd be discriminated against, not because they feared being rejected themselves. They did not object to the idea, and did not object to adopting a child of a different race themselves, only thought it would be unfair to the child considering the culture where they lived. They were not coming out against the idea of interracial adoption. They were explaining to you why they had chosen not to do so themselves, after you asked if people would be willing to do so. That's a far cry from "a lot of opposition" and is not the selfish motivation you imply.

When you challenged her to do so just to change the pecking order, her response was again not selfish:

The other person who replied is part of an interracial marriage herself, and said how difficult it is for her family in the area they live in. She did not say that white people should not adopt black children; she said that it's wise to consider the way things are and only do so if you're prepared to help that child with the struggles they will face.

You're substantially misrepresenting what three people (a husband and wife in Kentucky, and another woman in Arkansas) said in a conversation almost two years ago, and making it out as if that misrepresentation is indicative of the attitude of the people on the boards at large. That's just ridiculous.

wow, i feel like i should go to my room, and gandalf wasn't even talking to me :cool: .

No matter, im sure you will backpedal again in this thread like you do in others.

[Sam!]

I agree, that invading a funeral is morally reprehensible... the problem I have is that because at this moment in time, we find invading a funeral morally reprehensable, who's to say that in the future protesting an abortion clinic isn't morally reprehensable. I mean these ladies are trying to go have an abortion in privacy, right? What gives protesters the right to stand there and protest...

I have a problem letting the government pass this kind of law... If it were placed as an amendment into the constitution I would get behind it, because it would be specific, and have very little ramifications otherwise...

That is my problem with this bill....
*Ahem*...not to derail this little rabbit trail, but...

I hear you... and I have a feeling this will be struck down in court. But this was probably the fastest way to solve the problem (and perhaps will buy time for a longer-term solution).


P.S. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life... If we are called to do it for our friends, why not our children? Do you seriously believe that God desires for a woman to kill her unborn child so that she can live? When does He ever advocate killing someone else for selfish gain? Darn I think I just re-derailed us...

[Gandalf]

There's no reason for it to be struck down. The Constitution doesn't forbid restrictions on speech altogether - it's not legal to yell "fire!" in a movie theater if there's no fire, and there are laws about where you can gather to protest, generally. As long as the people are allowed to peaceably assemble and say whatever their opinion is, there's no problem - and they are allowed to do so; they just have to stay a short distance away from the funeral while they do. This one's not even questionable Constitutionally - there's no problem with it at all.

[Sam!]

There's no reason for it to be struck down. The Constitution doesn't forbid restrictions on speech altogether - it's not legal to yell "fire!" in a movie theater if there's no fire, and there are laws about where you can gather to protest, generally. As long as the people are allowed to peaceably assemble and say whatever their opinion is, there's no problem - and they are allowed to do so; they just have to stay a short distance away from the funeral while they do. This one's not even questionable Constitutionally - there's no problem with it at all.
There you go with your fancy logic and reason and sense... this is the federal court system we are talking about here, Brian! All it will take are a few anti-war judges to legislate how they want...

[Gandalf]

True, but the Supreme Court has been pretty consistent on this issue... they'd be going against Supreme Court precedent to do so, and such a decision would be overturned without much discussion.

[musicjaytee]

Isn't there a note in the free speech section that says something about as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others? This isn't an issue of free speech, especially since there was that huge long protest outside of Bush's ranch. Yes, people have the right to openly express opinions, even if they're stupid ones. For heaven's sake they even allow the KKK to hold rallies. A funeral is not the same thing. I agree with the bill. As if the families aren't in enough pain and struggle with their faith enough. Let's allow a group of "Christians" to say their kid died cause God hates us.

[cheewiee]

Isn't there a note in the free speech section that says something about as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others? This isn't an issue of free speech, especially since there was that huge long protest outside of Bush's ranch. Yes, people have the right to openly express opinions, even if they're stupid ones. For heaven's sake they even allow the KKK to hold rallies. A funeral is not the same thing. I agree with the bill. As if the families aren't in enough pain and struggle with their faith enough. Let's allow a group of "Christians" to say their kid died cause God hates us.

No there is no note in the "free speech section"... It is implied that you have your rights as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others....

HOWEVER The constitution does NOT guarantee privacy in public... This concept is very much part of upheld law...

If you want to make funerals a private matter then do so by passing a constitutional amendment stating people have the right to a private funeral....

[TheBus36(Retired)]

No there is no note in the "free speech section"... It is implied that you have your rights as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others....

HOWEVER The constitution does NOT guarantee privacy in public... This concept is very much part of upheld law...

If you want to make funerals a private matter then do so by passing a constitutional amendment stating people have the right to a private funeral....

Agreed. Wonderful solution to such a troubling issue.

[cheewiee]

Agreed. Wonderful solution to such a troubling issue.

By doing it this way, you are not limiting others rights (well you will be by virtue of the concept that your rights cannot infringe on the rights of others), but you are securing rights... It's a win/win senario....

[TheBus36(Retired)]

By doing it this way, you are not limiting others rights (well you will be by virtue of the concept that your rights cannot infringe on the rights of others), but you are securing rights... It's a win/win senario....

It certainly is, that makes so much more sense. Well, I think our job here is done, we can close this thread down now.:D

[Evanescence]

Aren't there laws for corruption of minors?

Take away this sicko's kids and lock him up for a while. Maybe some home-boys in the clinker will show him what Jesus is all about....FOR REAL!!!!!!!

Down with insanity in the church!!!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Evanescence]

TTT

Check this out, looks like Fred may be haiving to shell out some greenbacks for his actions...

I hope more people sue this kook over this crap....

Its in my home town....

YORK, Pa. -- The father of a Maryland Marine who died in Iraq plans to sue a group that protested outside his son's funeral.

Albert Snyder of York, Pa., plans to file suit today in federal court in Greenbelt. He's the father of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder of Westminster.

Snyder's attorney, Sean Summers, said he will sue the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas, for unspecified actual and punitive damages. The civil suit will claim defamation, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Matthew Snyder died March 3 after an accident in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. The accident did not involve combat.

The lawsuit plans were first reported by the Carroll County Times.

The church group has been picketing at military funerals to protest soldiers defending a country that tolerates gay people.

http://www.wgal.com/news/9320197/detail.html