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.

 

Fallen Marine's father says anti-gay pickets will draw gunfire

page: 7
30
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by DaWhiz
 


I think my water guns would be filled with holy water from my bladder.




posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Whether we like it or not, they're a religious entity expressing themselves in a manner which they believe will save souls. I in no way condone their message, share their beliefs, or think their platform and venue are respectable; but then again, I'm not a fan of religious organizations to begin with.

PS- Before folks start locking and loading or encouraging others to do so, just remember that there are children at these protests.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Westboro has done nothing wrong. Not a single crime.



In the eyes of the law, Westboro might not have done anything legally wrong,
But what they are doing is morally wrong and someday this sick, twisted behavior
will bite them in the behind.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Like it or not, this is the price we pay for freedom. As bad as they are, I would not want their rights taken away.

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.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
I said 10 times in this thread the only freedom of speech you don't have is to get people killed.


How about ''obscenity'' laws ?

I'm not American, but would I be allowed to put up billboards with extremely graphic and sexually explicit wording on it in the USA ?

And how about the ''fighting words'' exemption to the First Amendment, that I was reading about ? You may be fined or imprisoned for using language that may induce a violent reaction from the person that the words are aimed at.


Face it, the Supreme Court of the US, over the years, has ruled in favour of exceptions and exemptions to the First Amendment, such as laws against slander, pornography, obscenity, incitement etc.

While I appreciate that you may not agree with any or all of these exceptions, to hold up the rights outlined within the First Amendment as some kind of unblemished utopian principle is far from correct, factually, or in actuality.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Isnt it strange , this world in which we live. I can understand lawyers and politicians having more respect for what is lawful , than what is just. But for the common man to have respect for law above the needs of justice and morality? Thats just strange to me, very strange indeed.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   
If it was my son's funeral they were protesting it would be their last, Freedom of speech or not. and when their church was burning down I wouldn't even shout fire. somebody will do something I am only surprised they haven't done it already.

Protest outside Government or outside Army bases but not at Funerals



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mr_skepticc
Like it or not, this is the price we pay for freedom. As bad as they are, I would not want their rights taken away.


Not more of this ''freedom'' nonsense that so many Americans claim to support ( although, they only really support the ''personal freedoms'' that they agree with. )

People, according to these arguments, should have the ''freedom'' to possess child pornography. So why is possession of this material a crime ?

If you support ''freedom'', then you must support somebody's ''right'' to own child pornography.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Mr. Snyder, the father in the OPs article, is absolutely right. It's only a matter of time until some grieving relative is going to drive his truck right through a WBC protest, and gladly accept the consequences of doing so. You can argue freedom of speech until the cows come home, but that won't change anything. You can argue over whether or not it would be right to kill WBC members, that won't change anything, either.

The WBC seems to enjoy pushing buttons at places where people are alredy under emotional stress. That's a game you can only play for so long before you push someone over the edge and end up getting hurt or killed. Someone's eventually going to snap, bad things will happen, and the attacker will most likely get off on temporary insanity, and who could blame him?

The WBC can stand on their first ammendment rights all day, but their rights aren't going to stop the F-150 doing 60mph straight at them, or the over-stressed fella with a .45. Then the WBC will be in the news again, this time as victims.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   
What happened to Ray Mcgoverns protection by the second amendment? The constitution is crapped on all he time for incredibly bad reasons while they uphold this kind of stuff which offers nothing. There should be a law protecting funerals. After someone gets hurt they will. Grief causes some people temporary insanity. And they are playing with fire. What about a soldier on leave with PTS at the funeral? There would be absoluey no harm in protecting funerals and if the forefathers knew such moraless people would come to exist itwould already be in there.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Not more of this ''freedom'' nonsense that so many Americans claim to support ( although, they only really support the ''personal freedoms'' that they agree with. )

People, according to these arguments, should have the ''freedom'' to possess child pornography. So why is possession of this material a crime ?

If you support ''freedom'', then you must support somebody's ''right'' to own child pornography.


That's a terrible analogy. That's like saying if you support the right to bear arms then you must support the right for every American to also own biological weapons. The world's not so black and white.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   
You have to be able to understand this Father's point of view.

Regardless of whether or not you agree with the war, or all that "freedom" BS Americans like to yell and scream about, this man lost his son and this group of animals want to make that it hurts as much as humanly possible.

I am all for "freedom", but these people have absolutely no right to do what they're doing to this man or any other of the other families of fallen soldiers.

Surely there has to be a line to your freedom of speech. Surely common sense can step in there somewhere. Where is this man's freedom to celebrate his son's life in peace?

I swear, I am sickened by this world more and more each day.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boreas
That's a terrible analogy. That's like saying if you support the right to bear arms then you must support the right for every American to also own biological weapons. The world's not so black and white.


It's an absolutely correct analogy, and you know it.

I am highlighting the hypocrisy in those who claim to support ''freedom'', despite what that freedom may entail, yet will practically burst a blood vessel at someone possessing anything that they personally deem to be ''indecent''.

Possessing child pornography does not harm anybody. You could argue that paying for it helps to financially support a crime, but, as far as I know, the US law doesn't make any exception for those who have not payed for the images/videos.

The ''crime'' is based entirely on ''moral indignation'', and goes against any genuine form of ''personal freedom''.


Also, please show me the passage of the US Constitution that would invalidate somebody from making and owning biological weapons ?

Au contraire, I would say; the US Constitution would make this possibility perfectly acceptable.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Jesus Christ associated with whores, liars, thieves, slave owners, and the scum of the earth in general. He loved them. Throughout his ministry he embraced them and showed them compassion. He did not point fingers or lay blame or even say that God hated them. He simply said that they were loved and deserved salvation. The only time in the Bible where I remember Jesus being absolutely enraged was here:
John 2:13-22 (King James Version)
13And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
14And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
15And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;
16And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.

It would seem to me that this church(if you can call it that) is simply using over the top, hate filled rhetoric to attract attention to build it's membership and therefor fill its coffers.
I am a Christian. I do not belong to any church. My relationship with God is between me and him. I have never let another man or woman tell me how to interpret the Bible. This is solely my opinion on this subject.
The Westboro Babtist Church is not doing God's work. The work of a Christian is one of spreading the Gospel not hate or judgement. Judgement is reserved for God.
If they spent all of this energy embracing Gays and counseling them then I would assume that they would save a few souls. You can't save them all, but even if they saved one then it is good work. That also makes the world better by showing the true nature of Christianity and fostering good relationships and peace. Hate, condemnation, and inflaming an already contentious subject and using the funerals of anyone to do that is sinful and therefor the work of the devil in and of itself.
They have the right to do what they do. The law of the land says so. We cannot hate these people of that church. If we do then they have won.


edit on 3/4/2011 by LastStand because: opinion to add



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by Boreas
That's a terrible analogy. That's like saying if you support the right to bear arms then you must support the right for every American to also own biological weapons. The world's not so black and white.


Possessing child pornography does not harm anybody.






how the hell can you say that!!! so abusing the child isn't a required action to make possession possible?



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Both sides have their rights and their wrongs period.

What I find Stupid is that they go and protest at a funeral of one of THEIR countries soldiers.

GAY OR NOT, he/she still died trying to "protect" you and your country while you sit and talk smack about how "oh this side is right, no this side has freedom of speech".

STFU already.

At least appreciate what they are doing.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Something hinky about how no one, not even the SCOTUS, can stop Phelps and that this issue is the one issue that Gay Activists and the Military seem to agree on.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
That soldier fought for the rights of the Westboro church to protest freely, there is a difference in exercising your right and exercising poor judgment. I don't think gays should be allowed in the military. I agree with the church but they shouldn't have protested at the funeral.


And tell me why gays shouldn't be allowed in the military ? Give me one good reason.

People like yo shouldn't have the freedom of speech, seeing what you're doing with it.
edit on 4-3-2011 by BobbyTarass because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Here is how I see it...

1. Those people are disgusting. They get a rise out of people (including me) that I have never seen before.
2. They have a right to say what they want. protected under freedom of speech. Period. just like the KKK, Black Panthers, Hippies, etc. etc. etc.


Now, here is where I think this is an easy matter. They are disrupting a service. How come, when the groups mentioned above want to protest, they have to get permits to march, have a scheduled date, etc. This is so they cannot disrupt daily business, traffic, etc.

Easy fix would be for local govs to just enact something that states hey, you want to protest, you must have a permit, a scheduled date and time, and then they are given a time frame. Oh, and this must be made 3 months in advanced


They will never be able to protest at a funeral again, because they could never get the permit to do it in time.

They want to hold scheduled protests? Get a permit like everyone else.

I dont know, seems easy? Oh and please dont bash me saying I am for these people, or I am not a "patriot", bla bla bla. Just trying to figure out a sensible solution to this.

My personal opinion is they are disgusting, and sooner or later they are going to protest the wrong funeral, and someone is going to get hurt...bad.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by Boreas
That's a terrible analogy. That's like saying if you support the right to bear arms then you must support the right for every American to also own biological weapons. The world's not so black and white.


It's an absolutely correct analogy, and you know it.

I am highlighting the hypocrisy in those who claim to support ''freedom'', despite what that freedom may entail, yet will practically burst a blood vessel at someone possessing anything that they personally deem to be ''indecent''.

Possessing child pornography does not harm anybody. You could argue that paying for it helps to financially support a crime, but, as far as I know, the US law doesn't make any exception for those who have not payed for the images/videos.

The ''crime'' is based entirely on ''moral indignation'', and goes against any genuine form of ''personal freedom''.


Also, please show me the passage of the US Constitution that would invalidate somebody from making and owning biological weapons ?

Au contraire, I would say; the US Constitution would make this possibility perfectly acceptable.




By the child porn merely existing a crime was committed, that is why it is illegal to possess. It is not illegal to possess a dvd player but it is illegal to possess a stolen dvd player, even if you were not the one who stole it. Your analogy fails.

Holding up signs and saying mean things is not a crime. You may want to crack their heads with an aluminum bat, and I may agree with your feelings, but that doesn't make what they do illegal. Just annoying and stupid.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join