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: 6
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2006 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If they're not disrupting the funeral and they're not yelling and disturbing the peace, then they have a right to protest it.

This video shows that they are doing both at a funeral:

abclocal.go.com...

Look for it under the Related Links on the right side of the page, entitled
abc12 video report




posted on May, 26 2006 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
I thought about it for awhile and realised the laws werent made based on morals. They were made because the actions conflicted with peoples rights.


I thought about it for a while after I posted too. I'm thinking it's a mix.
Morals and conflicts with rights. I came up with that and then I saw what
you posted. HA! Interesting, eh?



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by zerotime
Abortion clinics are private property. Protesters can protest on the sidewalks but they cannot stop or interfere with people who want to enter the abortion clinic.


I have heard in the news about judges who made abortion protesters move
a certain distance away. Not to the edge of the private property but all the
way across and down the street.

MAN .. I wish I was paying more attention ... I'd post it here ....



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If they're not disrupting the funeral and they're not yelling and
disturbing the peace, then they have a right to protest it.


Apparently they Phelps scum ARE yelling and disturbing the peace.
That's why the families were all upset. I don't blame them.


The funeral-goers can either look at them and get all
upset about them or ignore them.


Oh BH ... that's easy for us to say here on this forum. But if it were
my daughter being buried .... the emotions, the difficulties, the stress,
the everything .... I HIGHLY doubt that I'd be able to think with
cold logic at that time. It would be an unbelievably difficult situation
and having those whacks carry on ... well ... it would be too much.



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
I have heard in the news about judges who made abortion protesters move
a certain distance away. Not to the edge of the private property but all the
way across and down the street.

MAN .. I wish I was paying more attention ... I'd post it here ....


That sounds accurate. I think most communities require protesters to be a certain distance from the place/event they are protesting. I think on average it is about 200 feet but I'm sure that varies in each community. Many states started passing funeral protest laws before this federal ban, and I believe the state laws just upped the distance to 500 to 1000 feet from the funeral.



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by zerotime
Protesters operate, BY LAW, by a different set of rules than the general public.
You guys keep saying "Disturbing the peace or Public Nuisance" but those laws
do not governer protesters.


Well, zerotime may have found the reason why the politicians decided
it was necessary to pass a special law for national cemetaries. I was going
to ask if national cemetaries had different laws than public ones and if that
was why this law was needed ... but I think zerotime has answered the 'WHY'
for me.

OKAY .. let's see if I get this straight ...

1 - This law in no way infringes upon the rights of protesters to protest.
2 - This law reinforces the rights of Americans to practice their faith.
3 - This law is NOT redundant because, as zerotime just pointed out, protesters operate under a different set of laws and 'Nuisance' laws dont' apply.
4 - We are suspicious of politics and motives, and worry about 'Slippy Slope'.
5 - We can't stand Phelps or his sicko bunch.

Yes?



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by zerotime
I think most communities require protesters to be a certain
distance from the place/event they are protesting.


OKAY! So .. what's the beef with having protesters have to stay
the same distance away from grieving families as pro-lifers have
to stay away from abortuaries??

Anyone??

If not - then Phelps has a right to get in the face of a someone in a national
cemetary AND prolifers have a right to stand on the sidewalk (public property)
in front of abortion clinics and pray their rosaries and/or hold up big signs with
pictures of aborted children.

Right?

(I still think this is an issue of protecting religious freedoms.)



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
(I still think this is an issue of protecting religious freedoms.)


I thought we were both equally stubborn, but maybe not...

Stubborn Queen!

(just kidding)

Anyway, knowing that these creeps might protest my daughter's funeral, I wouldn't give them the opportunity. I would have the funeral on private property, call all the bikers I know and not make any public announcements about the burial.



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Well, zerotime may have found the reason why the politicians decided
it was necessary to pass a special law for national cemetaries. I was going
to ask if national cemetaries had different laws than public ones and if that
was why this law was needed ... but I think zerotime has answered the 'WHY'
for me.


Any honorably discharged vet and spouse can be burried in a national cemetary. The plots are free. This helped my siblings and I when our parents passed away. Their plots, markers, vaults, and the opening and closing of the plots were provided at no charge. National cemetaries are under federal regulation but also have to comply with local and state laws. For example, the state of Florida now requires a cement vault in the grave.

Edit to add that active duty are also eligable, not sure about spouses.

[edit on 5/26/2006 by darkelf]



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 04:23 PM
link   
My point for the whole thread is that I do not believe there is any way that the people who wrote the good natured laws for demonstrating and protesting in public ever intended or envisioned that these laws would be used to protest a personal funeral. Protesting a funeral was never the intent of demonstrating and protesting laws. It was an exploit, which went against the spirit of the laws. And indeed, it took decades of well meaning protesters with real issues before we found the one moron who would find this exploit and start using it. Maybe the lawmakers could not foresee this because they foolishly believed that people had common sense and a once of decency and respect, but obviously the times have changed. Protesting funerals was an exploit to the demonstrating and protesting laws and now that exploit has been identified and patched before it had the change to get worse. No one lost any rights. The rights for demonstrating and protesting are still available to everyone.



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Very well-said, zerotime. I honestly can appreciate your point of view and I agree with a lot of what you have said.

It's a situation we should never be in. But here we are and the decisions we make now will affect the future. I just think we need to be aware of that.



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 05:14 PM
link   
These specific animals, have every right that you and I have...mores the pity. BUT
The base, foul and almost universally wrong # they're spouting does give one just a bit of a pause...
How much is enough?

I think they are not only wrong, but wrong-headed.

However, I am aghast at the fact that CONGRESS and that chimp-faced prick have the power to tell you and me that, no matter how we protest, those #ers will always win.
Bull#!!!!!
No way! I've read on no less than three threads the same agonized question, "How will we survive?!!"
Boo-fricken-hoo.
The time is NOW.
We MUST act NOW!
Start locally...BE PISSED OFF, get others pissed off too.
NEVER EVER let one of these liars get away with ANYTHING!
FIGHT! Fight like your children's lives depended upon it.
If you've time...fight like yours did too.
It does.
Lets break open a can of righteous whoop-ass!

wow sorry... just a bit buzzed.
Don't actually belay my last, but, give it the fair berth that a drunken rant like that deserves.
best,
TT

[edit on 26-5-2006 by triptrippington]



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Actually Zerotime, the consideration is nothing too new. I think the founders just assumed that everyone knew the answer.

I think it was 1864 when Mill published On Liberty, which as one of the examples on freedom of expression pointed out that while one can say whatever he likes about the price of grain in a vaccuum, he obviously cannot say it to an angry mob outside of a grain-seller's home.

I really doubt Mill was the first to figure that out; it's common sense.

Yet again I reitterate that this law really only adopts existing state laws over federal property and explicitly acknowledges funeral protests as violations. It is already a crime in California, and probably in most states, to speak offensively when it is inherently likely to cause a violent reaction.

Could you surround a black man and slur him as long as you didn't touch him? Of course not.
Same thing applies here.



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
call all the bikers I know


Well, there ya' go!
Call some private help. How about
the folks from Rolling Thunder? I betchya' if they heard that
a funeral of a fellow vet was being threatened by those nutz,
they'd come a running (or a rolling I should say!!).

I'd even pay to see that!

Only thing about having the funeral on private property .. then the
daughter would miss out on having a funeral in a National Cemetary.
That's a big honor. I'd hate to see those wing nutz ruin that for the
folks who want their fallen family members honored in such a way.

[edit on 5/26/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 07:15 PM
link   
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]



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Wellwhatnow: where do you live? I'll make it a point never to visit except during lunch hours. lol
We just plain don't do it down here where I come from. If I may quote walk the line, "Don't touch it! Don't think about touchin' it, don't sing about touchin' it, don't think about singin' about touchin' it!" It's just not done here.

But yes I get your point and I agree, though only to the extent that social norms exist for the prevention of harm, which generally is how it works. For example, i can't pick somebody else's nose, or i can be arrested, but if I pick my own nose I won't go to jail, I just won't be dating much.

The culpability for lack of outrage over protests at gay funerals is first shared by all of us for seeming disinterested, but then again stuck most directly to those who have assumed the responsibility of being "the people's watchdog", namely the media, yet never bothered to say anything about that.

Afterall most of us never knew, but would have supported a law protecting them just as quickly, a few religious fanatics aside, and as far as I'm concerned they're like Phelps, only lazy.

If the ACLU has any concern for civil liberties they'll look for a suitable case to take this law to court and force the government to either strike it down as legislation against a particular group or else broaden it to include all such disturbances of the peace.

Of course they won't do that, as is their right. The ACLU's notion of what our civil liberties ought to be and to what end we have them seems to differ from mine.



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Wellwhatnow: where do you live? I'll make it a point never to visit except during lunch hours. lol



Yes I could have stated that better!
You understand norms though - I am quite convinced that all norms are of great importance to society (although I'll admit they aren't always beneficial). That's just my slant on things since I am a sociologist.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Here is an update to where the case is going:

Ruling could clear way for protest to recommence

I cannot believe that they are going to let this crap start up again.

Why can't people leave the families alone so that they can mourn in peace?

These people are the lowest form of life on the planet.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Congress continues to pass laws that seem all nice and dandy, but your forgetting these nice little laws are opening up the flood gates.....

When it comes to t he Constitution the LAW of this land you must think beyond the present....
sure this "seems" nice but what have we allowed them to do by allowing this law to pass?


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.


this is no different then the patriot act violations and every thing that followed "it seemed nice" but in reality it wasn't.. they used your little emotions to rob you, and you don't even realize it.

or maybe you do and just don't care...

Am I saying I agree with these moronic disrespectful jerks? not by any means, but i unlike others understand free speech and its purposes, you don't have to like it or agree with it, but you damned well better be ready to defend it even if its unfavorable.. because any limits on it is a limit on YOU.

The reason they only banned it from national cemeteries even thought they have no right to, is the fact that they are somewhat following the rules of the game which surprises me seeing as half of the stuff they vote on and pass isn't in there power... but they have NO authority to do anything within the states, only Fed property.

[edit on 7-12-2007 by C0le]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join