Congress passes funeral protest ban., page 6

I'm also a fan of Mill and I highly value my freedom of speech.

From a sociological perspective, society on the whole must have some rite associated with death. To undermine it is to undermine the fabric of society as it is usually understood. Whether the rite is a spiritual one or not, it will exist in every society as a general rule.

Each society also has it's own mores and norms. We don't audibly pass gas during a wedding if we can prevent it, we don't pick the nose of the person next to us on the bus, we don't deficate on public streets during our lunch hours. These are norms that help the people of our culture live side by side. It is also generally the norm that we shouldn't mock another's pain. It's cruel, it's rude, it's cowardly, and good people don't do it. It's a shame we would have to have any law to address this. Norms are so important that it is generally accepted that to display a lack of regard for the norms of one's own culture is indicative of a personality disorder.

I also must ask though, where was all the fuss when Phelps disrupted the funerals of gay people? No one proposed any laws (that I know of) when Phelps was celebrating the death of Mathew Shepard during Mathew's funeral. It's only when a soldier's funeral is disrupted that we see laws passed to deal with it. I begrudge the soldier nothing, I support our troops and their funerals should be left alone. However, a soldier is no more loved by his/her family than a gay person is by his/her family. As members of society we should all be allowed to perform some form of funeral rite in solemnity, whether or not we are soldiers.

I also find it interesting that when I protested President Bush, I was required to stay many miles away from him. He did not want his fund raiser disrupted, nor his bike ride with Lance Armstrong - so the closest I could get was over 5 miles away. New laws were passed by the dozens in Crawford, Tx last year to prevent protesting while our President is on vacation there because he doesn't want his vacations disrupted.

With this things in mind, the whole funeral protest ban smacks of pseudo-patriotism to me. It sends a message that says, "Don't disturb me or my soldiers, and other than that you can harrass each other all you want. I don't really give a damn, but don't I look patriotic now?"

If the ban were really about protecting the rights of mourners, the freedom of religion, or the freedom to peacefully assemble, it would have been enacted fairly all across the board. ALL funerals would have been protected from the time of Phelps first anti-gay rant or it would have been decided that NO funeral could be protected from Phelps and his kind. It is my opinion that to enact a ban now proves that the ban is not an act of justice, but only an act of politics.

edit to tone down my rant-like quality, not sure if I succeeded

[edit on 5/26/06 by wellwhatnow]