Anti-gay group plans to challenge new law against funeral protests

[Jerry]

ASSOCIATED PRESS
03/02/2006

ANDERSON, Mo. (AP) -- Members of a Kansas group known for their "God Hates Fags" placards say they'll picket the weekend funeral of a Missouri soldier, setting up the first direct challenge of a new state law.

Army Pfc. Christopher L. Marion, killed last week by a roadside bomb in Iraq, will be buried Saturday in Anderson, south of Joplin in the southwest corner of Missouri.

And the Topeka, Kan.-based Westboro Baptist Church will be there, said Shirley Roper-Phelps, the daughter of the Rev. Fred Phelps. He founded the nondenominational church that claims God is allowing soldiers, coal miners and others to be killed because the United States tolerates homosexuals.


http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...CB2C9380D2405F4C8625712500569747?OpenDocument

I haven't read the law, but I support it conceptually.
No one should be protesting at funerals. The family's right to not be harassed over rides anyone else's right to free speech and peacefull protest.

That being aside from the fact that the protest solves nothing, as it will neither raise the dead nor be an accurate protest against the war or homosexuality.
These people are lame.

 

[cnredd]

While I do appreciate your hard work, and you are very tedious, to say the least, I think Jallman's statement stands, "anyone who knows anything about Christians " these folks obviously don't know anything about your average Christian, they don't want to know, or they just rely on what they have heard! Anyone who can have the blind faith in something they have never had proven to them, those folks can't be that awful, can they? Anyone who believes what Christ has taught us, can these people possibly so intolerant, or hateful as some have suggested, it just makes no sense to me. The Christians I know, they will give you the shirt off their backs, no questions asked. That said, I share your frustrations, and your obvious attempts to educate others to the wonderful world of Christianity, and the beautiful people who follow this great religion.

May God be with all of you, this is spoken from the heart, and not in any way a means of converting you, just a way to share what comforts me so greatly.

Oh, good news, Robertson is out on his a$$, he no longer speaks for anyone!:2wave:

Two thoughts...

1) This is from the post you've responded to...

If this is true, then why are there so many posts and threads with Robertson even being mentioned?...If he is SOOOO "on the fringe"(which I believe), then why is he constantly being mentioned over and over and over again?...

Why?...because there are people here that DO believe that Robertson is "this guy" that "represents them"...

So it seems your statement...

"these folks obviously don't know anything about your average Christian, they don't want to know, or they just rely on what they have heard!"...

...may unfortunately, be correct...I do find it astounding that there are people out there that actually believe it...Maybe I gave them too much credit...

2) Pertaining to this comment...

That said, I share your frustrations, and your obvious attempts to educate others to the wonderful world of Christianity, and the beautiful people who follow this great religion

If it came across that way, it was purely unintentional...If you've ever seen my posts...and I'm damn sure you have:2wave: , you should know that I don't ever really input religion into discussions...With over 6000 posts, I'm guessing my personal beliefs from a religious perspective have been mentioned in less than 10 of them...

Religion causes debate to go from a factbased debate into an emotional one, so I try not to bring it into play...Most of the time, it just gives fuel to the fire of who you're debating, and I'd rather show truth than what I BELIEVE to be truth...

 

[cnredd]

When you posted the links to the threads, I read the first post only. You were pointing out how all these threads were started by Bush-haters, and I inferred from your post that you were saying that the only reason these threads were started was to associate Pat with the conservatives. I never saw someone equating Robertson to conservatives in that first post. All I saw were people who were making fun of or insulting him and him alone. This is what caused me to deduce you were making this a partisan issue.

Regardless, cnredd, jallman's comment was clearly nonpartisan; however, you then made it a partisan issue. Obviously my thoughts were not totally off the mark since Kelzie saw it too. It's not a big deal.

Pertaining to the bolded comments...Let me ask you a question...

Why...WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?...is Pat Robertson't name continually being brought up?...

Seriously...I'd like a legitimate answer to that...Deegan has come up with the only legitimate answer brought up so far...

..."because there are people here that are so uninformed that they believe Robertson represents the masses."

And if that's NOT the case, then question of "Why?" still remains unanswered...I've shown evidence that there are people who do it to smear people on one side of the aisle...actaul quotes from our very own members...

Now these are the only two answers brought up...Either they are grossly uninformed or they purposely smear...

Is there another answer that you can come up with or do you agree on either of these?...:2wave:

 

[BWG]

I would agree with you IF you would supply an example or two...

Can you name someone from the "Liberal community or Democratic Party" that is condemned by the vast majority of Liberal members on this website?

Name somebody on the Liberal side of the aisle and then show me five different Liberal members that condemn them with the same vigor I could show Conservatives condemning Pat Robertson...

I'd LIKE to agree...But I don't see it...Point it out to me...

No one should take Coulter seriously. Like Moore, Sheehan etc. she only rallies her base. She doesn't convince any liberals or moderates to come to the conservative side. She is just an entertainer. A good one though.

I have bought and read Moore books as well as Coulter books. They have both made excellent toilet reading.

Coulter is no more credible than Moore and she no more speaks for all conservatives than Moore does for all liberals. Like Moore, she makes her money telling dittoheads what they want to hear.

However, if some from conservative side of the aisle still insist aligning all liberals with the likes of Moore or Sheehan, then they themselves also deserve to be aligned with quacks like Coulter or O'Reilly.

Michael Moore is an idiot who gives liberals a bad name. He's nothing more than the left's answer to Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh.

I like Michael Moore for what he is. An entertainer. But I don't really think he should be respected as some kind of political figure.

besides him being fat and ugly

I think he does it for money and the spotlight.

I'm not a rightist by any means, but I can tell you why I hate Michael Moore

Two hours of Michael Moore = Two Hours of Fox News.

I think that Michael Moore is biased and partisan as well, and I object to many of the things that he says.

I could show the same with Sheehan and others, but like I said the door swings both ways.

 

[aps]

Pertaining to the bolded comments...Let me ask you a question...

Why...WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?...is Pat Robertson't name continually being brought up?...

I guess I have always thought he was brought up because he says the most outrageous things. Maybe I am missing something. I have never associated conservatives with him (and we know I am the first one to take a jab at a con ). I have to admit that I don't read much about him beacuse I think he is a loser, so I don't go into those threads and had not seen that some of the libs would attempt to associate him with the cons. So I must claim ignorance. :surrender

Seriously...I'd like a legitimate answer to that...Deegan has come up with the only legitimate answer brought up so far...

..."because there are people here that are so uninformed that they believe Robertson represents the masses."

See above.

And if that's NOT the case, then question of "Why?" still remains unanswered...I've shown evidence that there are people who do it to smear people on one side of the aisle...actaul quotes from our very own members...

Now these are the only two answers brought up...Either they are grossly uninformed or they purposely smear...

Is there another answer that you can come up with or do you agree on either of these?...:2wave:

I will give you that. I saw those posts you posted where they did that, and it surprised me.

 

[Navy Pride]

Why you ask?...well that an easy one to answer.
How would you feel if the funeral was someone in your family and you saw these people?
Myself...I would goto jail that day but thats just me...

If they disrupt the funeral lock them up for disturbing the peace and any other charge you can come up with....Prosecute them to the full extent of the law....Make and example out of them.........

 

[Navy Pride]

I would agree with you IF you would supply an example or two...

Can you name someone from the "Liberal community or Democratic Party" that is condemned by the vast majority of Liberal members on this website?

Name somebody on the Liberal side of the aisle and then show me five different Liberal members that condemn them with the same vigor I could show Conservatives condemning Pat Robertson...

I'd LIKE to agree...But I don't see it...Point it out to me...

Exactly, Cindy Sheehan is a perfect example...Have you heard any democrats or liberals condemn for her outrageous actions and statements.....Oh and before you say she has a right becasue her son was killed in Iraq that excuse has worn out long ago....

 

[cnredd]

I could show the same with Sheehan and others, but like I said the door swings both ways.

First and foremost, thanks for taking the time to do the research...many times I've asked for evidence with responses of silence...

Although you have shown instances where members not on the right have denounced Moore(Kandahar, Captain America, and galenrox have admitted they are Independants, and not Liberals)...I believe it is I that have failed to properly request what I was looking for...

The difference between Robertson & Moore(or Sheehan for that matter), is that there is NOT a contingency on this forum that defends Robertson, whereas I can bring up many instances or Moore-backers and Sheehan backers...MUCH more than any Robertson-backers...

Example?..We can just go to where you got Kandahar's post...Here is the original thread that started that discussion...

Why does the right hate Michael Moore so much?

Why does the right hate Micheal moore so? Everything I have seen by him exposes many issues today, and how they tie in to our lives and government. From what I have seen in his documenteries he really just tries to show why events are happening in our country. I don't think he is out to just "bash Bush".
Why does the right treat him with such seething hatred and disdain? I often just hear "He is fat and stupid". Typically I tend to ignore comments that only point out someone's physical appearance. Obviously the man is not stupid or he would not have the success he does.

Also there was a poll a few months ago asking about Moore...Here it is...

55 people considered him a "Noble Hero"...Catch that?...55 people!...

Now if you started a thread asking how many think Robertson is a "Noble Hero", what would you get?...10?...5?...1?...

As admitted, my request was a bad one...It showed that there are those that DO have animosity towards Moore(and Sheehan) much like Robertson...

The difference is that you won't be able to find nearly the same amount of DEFENDERS of Robertson as you would Moore(or Sheehan)...

If you ask about Moore or Sheehan...or anyone else from the Lib side...TO the Liberal contingency, you'll get a split vote...There is no Liberal that the Liberal contingency on this forum is overwhelmingly against...Not one...

If you ask about Robertson TO the Conservative contingency on this forum, you'll get an overwhelming response...almost 100% if not 100%...That Robertson's a jackass...The defenders will be miniscule, if existant at all...

That is the way I should've put it...My wording was horrible, but the contention still stands...You won't find a Liberal who the Forum believes, as a vast majority from the Liberal contingency, is a jackass...

 

[Cassapolis]

Exactly, Cindy Sheehan is a perfect example...Have you heard any democrats or liberals condemn for her outrageous actions and statements.....Oh and before you say she has a right becasue her son was killed in Iraq that excuse has worn out long ago....

What exactly have been her "Outrageous actions and statements"? I know who she is of course but I have pretty much ignored what she has said, though I do know what her basic feelings are.

 

[cnredd]

I guess I have always thought he was brought up because he says the most outrageous things. Maybe I am missing something. I have never associated conservatives with him (and we know I am the first one to take a jab at a con ). I have to admit that I don't read much about him beacuse I think he is a loser, so I don't go into those threads and had not seen that some of the libs would attempt to associate him with the cons. So I must claim ignorance. :surrender



See above.




I will give you that. I saw those posts you posted where they did that, and it surprised me.

I got credit??????...Somebody pinch me!!!....

I don't know who the hell you are, but bring the real aps back!...

Thanks...:2wave:

 

[Navy Pride]

What exactly have been her "Outrageous actions and statements"? I know who she is of course but I have pretty much ignored what she has said, though I do know what her basic feelings are.

Oh maybe meeting with the sociaalist Hugo Chavez president of Venezuela and saying the U.S. is the biggest terrorist nation in the world and the president is the biggest terrorist or taking the side and speaking for terrorists herself to start.......I know you lefties don't have a problem with that kind of talk but most Americans do.......

 

[Cassapolis]

Oh maybe meeting with the sociaalist Hugo Chavez president of Venezuela and saying the U.S. is the biggest terrorist nation in the world and the president is the biggest terrorist or taking the side and speaking for terrorists herself to start.......I know you lefties don't have a problem with that kind of talk but most Americans do.......

Hmm...no frankly as a "lefty", and an American that believes in the Constitution, I believe that people have the right to say whatever they want unlike you righties who feel the need to discredit and try to silence anyone who has opposing views of yours. I ask for information and you still have to insult me. What a joke.

 

[jallman]

I agree, all but O'Reilly, I think he is more moderate then folks give him credit for. Sure, he can be an asshole, but he really tries hard to look out for the folks, as he so often claims. His attempt to get important issues front and center, is certainly commendable, I like the guy.

Scary...I was thinking the same thing last night. I am really starting to like that guy the more I watch his show. He is a lot more moderate than I used to think...I think people just have a problem with how straight forward he is.

 

[BWG]

First and foremost, thanks for taking the time to do the research...many times I've asked for evidence with responses of silence...

Thanks

I'll try to briefly answer some of you questions/statements.
First of all, as irritating as it is to have someone pin another's views on you, it is not so important to me as to invest a whole lot of research time. I use the 'Consider the Source'; 'If the Shoe Fits' types of philosophy. So those quotes were obtained from only a very few threads and I used those that I was fairly certain were not hardcore conservatives and that I found rather quickly (since then I have seen profiles that say: Political Leaning-Liberal;Party Affiliation:Socialist. How would they be classified?). Bottom line, if it was going to take me hours to refute you, this particular subject wouldn't have been worth it to me. :smile:

There is a huge difference between Pat Robertson and Michael Moore, I just grabbed him because I knew he is brought up all the time and it would be faster to find quotes, but that isn't the subject, so I'll digress.

Liberals get saddled with every statement left of Senator Brownback, because we defend their right to say what they will, but not necessarily the content. Also, just because you don't publicly denounce what someone says, doesn't mean that, by default, you agree with them.

One last little tidbit that I've noticed in the last week or so that noone has commented on or pointed out, hell maybe even the posters don't realize what they've said (see, I try to see the good in everybody, until shown different). I've noticed it by at least two posters. In this thread, check out post #36, last sentence.


I'm American!!!...LOL :lol:

 

[cnredd]

Scary...I was thinking the same thing last night. I am really starting to like that guy the more I watch his show. He is a lot more moderate than I used to think...I think people just have a problem with how straight forward he is.

Nope...The problem with O'Reilly is "hearsay"...A perfect example was the Letterman interview...

Letterman: Yeah, but I think there's something, this fair and balanced. I'm not sure that it's, I don't think that you represent an objective viewpoint.

O'Reilly: Well, you're going to have to give me an example if you're going to make those claims.

Letterman: Well I don't watch your show so that would be impossible.

O'Reilly: Then why would you come to that conclusion if you don't watch the program?

Letterman: Because of things that I've read, things that I know.

Is that horrible or what?..."I think what you do sucks, but I have no knowledge of what you do except from what I've been told or what I blindly think"...

You just admitted it yourself...The more you watch, the more you understand what's going on with him...

Most people who don't like him won't show the objectivity you've shown by giving him a chance by sitting down and actually watching...Instead, they read "O'Reilly's an a-hole", so they jump on the bandwagon blindly...

Of course, there are still going to be people that don't like him nomatter what...It just would be better to have them come to that conclusion by doing what you did instead of the Letterman response...

 

[Captain America]

I watch that idiot O'reilly for two reasons and two reasons only....

1. It's good to keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

2. I watch to see who sponsers his program. I do not want to ever be guilty of patronizing any of his sponsers. A personal boycott so to speak.

 

[Gardener]

I realize I fly completely under the radar at this forum here, but I would like to point out that I am a registered democrat. My positions on economic policy are decidedly liberal (not neoliberal, mind you, but liberal), my attitudes towards environmental protection is decidedly liberal and my attitudes towards civil rights are decidedly liberal.

When I speak of my opinions about Cindy Sheehan or Noam Chomsky, people probably just assume I am conservative, since so many folks here are so inordinatly preoccupied with labels that they imagine a whole panoply of attitudes must follow the expression of one particular viewpoint, but I have tried to be as clear as I can in defining where I draw the line between liberal and dogmatic leftist and have been extremely critical of the latter. I have made many references to exactly this same attitude in regards to Fred Phelps being as indicative of conservatism as is Noam Chomsky to liberality, but there has been little or no acknowlegement from many self-described conservatives here.

As far as I'm concerned, the central issues here, whether we are talking about Landover Babtist or the secondary discussion about "conservatives"; and "liberals" are belief systems based upon a high degree of conformity, a high degree of group identity and a high degree of belief based upon faith rather than rational examination. What I mean by faith here is not religious faith per se, but faith in the belief system no matter what it is called and that includes political faith -- idealoguery if you will. As far as I'm concerned, playing politics at this level reduces complex social interactions to little more than a game of sports where we select out team and then act as cheerleader. IMO, *THIS* is the real enemy no matter the political stripe, as it is the resulting rigidity, demand for conformity, and lack of openness to the other "side" that leads to the sort of conflict we see played out on the world stage and seem so impotant to rectify.

In any case, I can't imagine that a quick search for the exact words "you liberals" or "those liberals" would not elicit pages upon pages upon pages of results. To try to provide a quantitative basis to one's argumentation, I would advise a similar search for the terrms "You conservatives" or "Those conservatives". The results might provide some illumination in regards to the boxes in which we place one another and the expectations that arise from such a box.

 

[JOHNYJ]

Police find reasons to arrest people all the time. Especialy people they don't like.
These low class people that disrupt funerals should be no problem.