It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Congress passes funeral protest ban.

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2006 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
I think what they are doing is the lowest of low, but we can make a law on that. We can make a law about them imposing on these peoples liberties as a citizen though, because they are attacking these people right to be free from prosecution based on religion.


Its a very complicated issue. On one hand you have to protect those who have lost loved ones. And on the other hand you have to protect freedom of speech. But in this case I personally believe you should be watching out for those who have lost loved ones. Because there is absolutely no logical reason to protest a funeral, its just wrong in my opinion. Say we flip the situation around and there are soldiers protesting anti-war folks funerals. What would that be then?




posted on May, 26 2006 @ 10:07 AM
link   
I agree entirely ludachris, which is why I am AGAINST this new law. You can already protect these people without the law. When it comes down to it, they are infringing on these peoples rights. This law isnt fighting for their rights though, its deciding whats wrong and right. This is not the way laws were suppose to be made. Any law made should be based on the freedom of another person, not the moral basing of it.

It would be different if the law cannot protect these peopels basic rights from the protesters in which a law should be made to say any group of people that are being harrassed by protestors/group of people/ or person, can be reported to the authorities. These people dont need to be arrested, just removed from that place for the time being. Its totally different then determining whats right and wrong, then making a law on that.

In other words, its the job of the people there to report they are being harrassed by these people. Its not a counter protest these people are doing, and actually they are attacking these people verbally. Its not a protest of an issue if your directing it at these people in particular, thats just hiding it under the guise of an issue. What we need to do is either enforce a law we havent, or make a law that protects these peoples freedoms, rather then make a law which restricts the opposing groups rights.

[edit on 26-5-2006 by grimreaper797]



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
I agree entirely ludachris, which is why I am AGAINST this new law. You can already protect these people without the law. When it comes down to it, they are infringing on these peoples rights. This law isnt fighting for their rights though, its deciding whats wrong and right. This is not the way laws were suppose to be made. Any law made should be based on the freedom of another person, not the moral basing of it.
[edit on 26-5-2006 by grimreaper797]


I agree that laws shouldnt be made because of what is fair, but they should be made according to what is right or wrong. As most of our laws are. We have laws against murder, stealing, raping because they are wrong do we not. Because they hurt others and that is wrong, does protesting someones loved ones funeral not hurt them?

Thats the problem, I dont know what the laws are concerning protests and funerals. But at least these funerals should be able to be held in peace. There should be police escort to keep the protestors at a distance that keeps them hidden from view of those attending the funerals. It is more of a moral issue in my opinion, and my morals tell me it isnt right to protest a funeral, is completely inappropriate.

Here is a good opinion piece I found interesting. Keep in mind its an opinion piece and in no way am I trying to present it as factual information.
Protests and Funeral Laws.



[edit on 5/26/2006 by ludaChris]



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
People need to really read what grim and
The Vagabond are saying here.

I did. They were good posts. Thought provoking. The thought
that nuisance laws should be able to take care of this is interesting.
BUT (there is always a 'BUT') it would seem that those laws aren't
strong enough.

How about this? Someone post a nuisance law from the afflicted area
and we will look at what is being passed now about not protesting in
national cemetaries and we can see clearly if the law is needed.

Of hand I'd say that it must be .. or else the nuisance laws would have
been brought into play by now. AND I do understand the 'slippery slope'
issue - the fear of this being used to squash anti-war protesters who want
to use the backdrop of dead US service men and women in their protests.
I really do understand that.

None of us have law degrees (at least I don't think so), but it would
be interesting to look into this a bit. eh?



NO WHERE in the Constitution does it say we have the right NOT to be offended.

No ... but there is the part of our heritage about freedom of religion
- which a funeral is. THAT is what I'm concerned about. Someone
using claiming this is a 'freedom of speech' issue and then going
to cemetaries ... be they National, Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim
... whatever .. and protesting during funerals when people have a
RIGHT to practice their faith in peace. THAT is what I'm concerned
about.

I still don't see where anyone's rights to protest have been taken away.
Sincerely - Someone please show me where these kooks have been
denied the right to protest? They have just been moved a few hundred
feet away from people who are practicing their right of freedom of
religion so that both can exercise their rights.



[edit on 5/26/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
People need to really read what grim and The Vagabond are saying here. If the Powers That Be really wanted to stop these protesters, there are already LAWS on the books to do that. If they would enforce the existing laws, this church could be fined, arrested, whatever.

No there aren't. There may be some jurisdictions where they have rules in place, but there aren't any laws like this.


Think about the REAL reason this new BAN might be going into effect!

First, it's not a complete ban. Protesters (morons) could still protest. No one's "free speech" is being taken away. They just can't do it where it can't be a disruption to the funeral which is one of the most life changing events in one's life.
How can anyone who claims to be a human not support this? This is an (effing) funeral!!!
This is exactly what's wrong with society! Trying to stop something good because they claim their rights are being taken away. What a bunch of BS. Name one right that's being taken away. Besides, these egotistical bastards can't stop thinking about themselves long enough to realize there are more important things in life. These idiots obviously don't have the ability to show respect or sympathy. Can you even call these people humans? If these people had ALL their rights taken away I could honestly care less.


- Making a law to appease the 'offended'

Ok...and?
Child porn is offensive. Should that be ok too?


- Making a law to limit Free Speech

How?


- Instituting Protest zones far away from the central concern

Good.


- Setting a precedence for future Free Speech limitations

lmao. BS


- Introducing the idea of legislating rudeness or disrespect

Again, BS.
This is a funeral we're talking here.
A PRIVATE ceremony. Why do you want these protesters to have rights but want to take away the privacy rights of those attending the funeral? That doesn't make sense now does it?


I can't believe people aren't looking beyond their noses on this one.

I can't believe any human would disagree with this law.
Are you really that concerned over rights that you see nothing wrong with living in a 'everything goes' society?
Name one society that had success like that.


And Yumi is right. We have the right to be offended.

Yep. I'm horrifically offended that there are people out there who have such lack of respect that they are willing to protest at a funeral.
I'm also offended that people see nothing wrong with that. If you can't see anything wrong with that, you really need to examine yourself.


NO WHERE in the Constitution does it say we have the right NOT to be offended.

There's another document, call the declaration of independence...

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

These people are already at a funeral, you're saying adding to their grief is helping them persue happiness, their basic right?

Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility

Tranquility: 1: a disposition free from stress or emotion 2: a state of peace and quiet
Now do you think protesting at a funeral is helping promote tranquility?


Those who would give up your liberties (and you do give them up when you take them away from others) don't deserve them.

Again, what libert is being given up?
And what about the people attending the funeral? They're assembling peacefully at a private ceremony. Don't they have rights too?



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
And what about the people attending the funeral? They're
assembling peacefully at a private ceremony. Don't they
have rights too?


Americans have a right to practice their religion in peace.
Americans have a right to free speech.

Americans can not use their right to free speech to
override other American's rights to practice their faith.

These sites have documents from America, and the rest of
the world, on the right to practice the faith of your choice in peace.
There is even a link in the 'Bill of Rights' site about when freedom
of speech goes too far.

www.billofrights.com...

STATEMENTS ON RELIGIOUS
www.religioustolerance.org...

"Religious Freedom as a Human Right -- Issues of Democracy
www.usinfo.state.gov...



[edit on 5/26/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ludaChris

Originally posted by grimreaper797
I agree entirely ludachris, which is why I am AGAINST this new law. You can already protect these people without the law. When it comes down to it, they are infringing on these peoples rights. This law isnt fighting for their rights though, its deciding whats wrong and right. This is not the way laws were suppose to be made. Any law made should be based on the freedom of another person, not the moral basing of it.
[edit on 26-5-2006 by grimreaper797]


I agree that laws shouldnt be made because of what is fair, but they should be made according to what is right or wrong. As most of our laws are. We have laws against murder, stealing, raping because they are wrong do we not. Because they hurt others and that is wrong, does protesting someones loved ones funeral not hurt them?


actually no those laws werent made because they were morally wrong. It was made because it infringes on others rights to pursue happiness. Thats why self defense cases sometimes arent even punished because its not the murder but the fact that a person is trying to take away another persons rights as a US citizen. Its morally wrong of course, but laws arent suppose to be made on those foundations, they are suppose to be made on the foundations of a free society. All people are allowed to do whatever they please so long as it doesnt interfere with another persons rights as a US citizen. Laws are made to prohibit these people who try to take such rights away.

We cannot allow laws to be based on morals because no ones morals are exactly the same. Everyone isnt a christian, everyone doesnt believe in the same thing. Everyone IS a US citizen that is legally in the US, so those laws should be based around what the US society is. It is a Free society, so the laws should be made to fit that, not morals.



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
The thought that nuisance laws should be able to take care of this is interesting.
BUT (there is always a 'BUT') it would seem that those laws aren't strong enough.


The laws are strong enough (and I haven't looked into them, but I will) it's the fact that the laws aren't being enforced. Making another law is useless if the ones already available to handle this situation aren't enforced.



No ... but there is the part of our heritage about freedom of religion
- which a funeral is.


Funerals aren't a religious practice. Many people have religious ceremonies at their funerals, but a funeral isn't of itself a religious practice. Mine won't be. My husband's won't be. My Mother-in-Law's won't be. No preachers, no bible, no holy scriptures, whatever. I don't want to waste our time or change the subject but almost everyone has some kind of service or ceremony that they call a funeral, but it isn't necessarily a religious ceremony. It's a burial or cremation ceremony after a person dies.



I still don't see where anyone's rights to protest have been taken away.


You're right, and as I have said, my concern is not so much with this particular restriction, but with it's implications for the future (considering the way things are in this country today).



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   
now if this is intruding on peoples freedom of religion, you shouldnt need to make a new law to stop it, it should already be stopped on those premises. We stop murders because they intrude on people right to live, so your telling me without this new law we can stop a group of people harrassing another group because of their religious values? If thats the case then your country has been failing you for over 200 years. I believe that if brought to court the people being harrassed have every right to press charges because this protest infringes on their freedom to religion. Its a bit different then the KKK protests. In actuality the KKK protest does not target any certain people (in the sense they aren't standing in front of someones house screaming it), and they also are not infringing on any right. There is a difference between protesting and verbal attacking.

As soon as they address you in anyway, its become a verbal attack rather then just hate words.



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Funerals aren't a religious practice.


Catholic funerals absolutely are. Absolutely. The body and the
plot must be blessed. The prayers are essential for helping the
person to be released from Purgatory. The holy communion
received at Catholic funerals is also for the dead person so they
can be released from purgatory. The funeral mass is a MASS
which is a religious practice. The rosary prayed at the funeral
is a sacramental and a religious practice.

PRAYERS and prayer services are religious practices. I don't know
for sure what goes on at Protestant, Muslim and Jewish funerals ...
but the ones I have seen on TV all included prayers and invocations
which are religious practices.

To interrupt this is unnecessary and is definately stepping on the
'freedom of religion' of those trying to practice their faiths in peace.

side note - YES BH .. this IS interesting.



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Here's a start:

Disturbing the Peace



n. upsetting the quiet and good order particularly through loud noise, by fighting or other unsocial behavior which frightens or upsets people. It is a misdemeanor, punishable by fine or brief term in jail.



Kansas Public Nuisance



1. A public nuisance is an unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public, such as a condition dangerous to health, offensive to community moral standards, or unlawfully obstructing the public in the free use of public property.


Understanding Nuisance Laws



In determining whether an activity is a nuisance, the courts use a balancing test. Does the complained of activity do more harm than good? The courts consider such factors as the extent of the harm, the harm's character, the social value the law attaches to the type of use or enjoyment invaded, the suitability of the particular use or enjoyment invaded to the character of the locale, and the burden on the person harmed of avoiding the harm. Balanced against the alleged harms are such factors as the complained of conduct's social value, the suitability of the alleged offensive conduct to the character of the locale, and the impracticality of preventing or avoiding the invasion.


I especially recommend reading this one:

What Does the Law Say? (about limiting protesting)



This doesn't literally cover picketing around funerals, but it's a good bet that courts will find that the interest in protecting the privacy of the grieving at a funeral is at least as strong as the interest in protecting the privacy of people at their homes. The chief danger is the slippery slope: Once the supposedly narrow exception for residential picketing is broadened to cover funeral picketing, these two exceptions (one older and one new) could then be used as precedents in arguments for more exceptions (say, for churches or for medical facilities), which would eventually swallow the rule. But I suspect that courts would nonetheless be willing to recognize funerals as places where picketing is unusually intrusive, much more so than even at hospitals and abortion clinics.



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
There is a difference between protesting and verbal attacking.


Sure. But if the protesting in any way infringes upon the religious
rights of those practicing their faith then it is wrong. Even protesting
LOUDLY and drowning out the words of the priest/minister/rabbi/shaman
(whatever) ... that is infringing upon the right of religion.

I still haven't seen how moving these people a few hundred feet away
(so that people can practice their religious faith) is somehow stopping
them from being able to protest and have their right to free speech.



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Here's a start:

Excellent! Good reading! Informative!


I noticed the abortion clinic reference. That was interesting.

So why can't anti-Abortionists be allowed to picket and pray their rosaries
right next to the abortion clinic?? If the Phelps wing nuts are allowed to
go in cemetaries and shout AWFUL things at people who are practicing their
faith .. then prolifers should be allowed to sit on abortuary steps and
shout nasties at women who are about to commit abortion.

Right?



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Funerals aren't a religious practice.


Catholic funerals absolutely are. Absolutely.


Of course they are. I didn't say NO funerals are religious. I said the funeral isn't necessarily a religious ceremony. There are funerals that have no religious connection and there are funerals that have a large religious component.

Just like marriage, they can be secular OR religious. After all, we don't want to protect ONLY the religious funerals, do we?

I don't think we can use the religious aspect of some funerals as the reason to stop these jerks.



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by grimreaper797
There is a difference between protesting and verbal attacking.


Sure. But if the protesting in any way infringes upon the religious
rights of those practicing their faith then it is wrong. Even protesting
LOUDLY and drowning out the words of the priest/minister/rabbi/shaman
(whatever) ... that is infringing upon the right of religion.

I still haven't seen how moving these people a few hundred feet away
(so that people can practice their religious faith) is somehow stopping
them from being able to protest and have their right to free speech.


first off I agree with you that it does infringe, thats why I said it is punishable for them to do this. Just for different reasons.

And its not necessarily stopping their free speech. I just feel uncomfortable with them making laws that could move close and closer to real restriction of free speech when such a law isnt needed. Mainly because there are already laws that can restrict these people without banning certain protest, under certain circumstances. Instead of just using the existing laws to stop it, they make a new law which actually bans a type of protest, thus moving closer to restriction of free speech because it broadens the definition.

Plus its a waste of time to debate a law which isnt even needed to do the job that its suppose to because there are already laws that can.



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I don't think we can use the religious aspect of some funerals
as the reason to stop these jerks.


MOST funerals in national cemetaries are religious. At least
if you look at Arlington the stones are all crosses and the Star of David.
I'm sure that there are some that are the Muslim version .. what ... a
cresent moon?? (
I don't know) In all the times I've been to Arlington,
I haven't seen any non-religious tombstones.

This is a law about National cemetaries. What are the stats on
types of funerals? I don't know. We will have to look them up.
MY GUESS is that almost all the funerals involve the families religion
and religious practices. But of course, that's just my guess.

BTW .. still waiting to see how moving these vile pigs a few hundred feet
away from people practicing their faith somehow takes away their right to
free speech.

OH .. I was thinking about what grim said. Why another law. I thought of
this. I don't know if it's right .. but this is a thought ...

Considering how Phelps & Co. are screaming 'freedom of speech', perhaps
the locals and the politicians were afraid to bring up the nuisance laws to
shut them down. Perhaps they thought that by adding this law for national
cemetaries they would ensure (and remind everyone of) the right of religion
to the mourners at the same time ensuring the right of freedom of speech
to the protesters??

Edited to add that Grim said this -

Plus its a waste of time to debate a law which isnt even
needed to do the job that its suppose to because there are already
laws that can.


That made me grin. Imagine that .. politicians wasting time! ha ha ha!
Perish the thought. Thanks Grim .. you made me smile.


Seriously .. they must have been afraid of something or they saw a
loophole ... I'm not there debating with them so I have no idea what
motivated them except disgust at Phelps (which I think we all have??).

[edit on 5/26/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 12:31 PM
link   
no they are actually making manners worse because now instead of using a law thats been around for a long time, which hasnt ever really infringed with free speech that people are ok with, they create a new one. In a time like now, such a law couldnt come at a WORSE time. Its one more law that exploits the possiblity of our freedom of speech being taken away.

Such a law that has been used and is understandable should never be replace with a new controversial law, that people are uneasy about...especially if in the end the same outcome is accomplished.



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
I just feel uncomfortable with them making laws that could move
close and closer to real restriction of free speech ...


So you are against this not because it really is a restriction on
free speech, but because of that 'slippery slope' that I mentioned
earlier?

I acknowledge that. Yes. Absolutely. It COULD be a slippery
slope in the future. But really, anything could become a slippery
slope. We just have to keep an eye on the politicians ...
none of them can be trusted as far as I'm concerned.



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Im against it because its illogical and suspicious. Im against it because neither is necessarily restricting free speech, but people are failing to see they are starting to make laws based on morals. When you do this certain people start to be discriminated against. You have to make laws based on the freedoms that people were garenteed as US citizens. We already have such laws, so why make these laws?

It is a slippery slope, not only because of a possible freedom of speech issue, but an issue of making laws based on morality rather then our countries freedoms and rights.



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
After all, we don't want to protect ONLY the religious funerals, do we?


We are talking about them stepping on the rights of 'freedom of religion'.
So at this point that's all that has been brought up .. making sure that
people are allowed to practice their faith.

I agree with ya' ... just because a funeral isn't religious doesn't mean
that it shouldn't be protected under those nuisance laws (or whatever).
It's just that when the protests interfere with someone's religion .. then it's
an issue that goes to the heart of the religious freedoms garunteed by our
founding fathers and the documents that I already posted.

Phelps' (gag!) freedom of speech hasn't been interfered with .. and the
mourners can have their freedom of religion. It's a win/win situation.
(that needs to be kept an eye on like everything else in this country!)



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join