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: 9
30
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   
I think that many of you have taken the fathers comments and taken them to be a threat and this has lead to the debate of free speech n so forth. In reality the fathers statement is not a threat it is the truth that one comes to after analyzing the facts. The facts are that you have protesters at military funerals who are voicing unrelenting and unrestrained hatred in the most offensive manor possible. Whether this is their right or if it goes to far can be debated all day but they are doing it and that is a fact. You have military funerals attended by grieving family and friends who are in a very emotionally compromised state, that is another fact. Some of these funerals are attended by the comrades of the fallen, these are military members that have been trained to kill, been to a combat zone, and in some cases possible even the current funeral watched their brothers in arms die, so they are also in a very emotionally compromised state that is another fact. These funerals also contain the military personnel present to do the honors, the number depends on the level of honors requested by the family, that is another fact.

Add all these facts up and the sum is pretty obvious, sooner or later someone will turn to violence. When it does it will not be about freedom of speech or who has what rights. It wont be about anything that deep it will be about exactly whats on the surface; someone who was very sad and very angry just lost control and gave into their basic instincts.When it happens whoever acts upon it will probably say afterward that they "just wanted them to stop" not some long winded argument about rights or speech. Honestly you make large groups of emotional unstable people angry enough times, don't be surprised when sooner or later they act on impulse.

I am a veteran and I do not condone violence upon these protesters, however i will understand and most certainly not be surprised when it happens. I also wont feel bad for the protesters, if you play with fire expect to get burned.




posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Would you have freedom of speech if it wasn't for the fallen hero????
Would you have an amendment to even protect your free speech if it wasn't for men like this???
So what you are saying is that this westboro homophobe get's to spew out the mouth regardless and doesn't need to have respect for the dead or a fellow human being?
Is this the Christian way to have no morals or ethics or respect?
Wouldn't it be ironic if this minister died and 100,000 military gays showed up at funeral, would buy a ticket to that for sure
Very interesting take on free speech, so according to you we do not need to have morals or ethics or respect for anyone we don't agree with.
And peace to the world
edit on 4-3-2011 by laslidealist because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Something I've noticed in this thread is that quite a few people have somehow misequated "morality" (whatever the 'ell that means...) as trumping law of the land. This seems to me a bit of a major problem, as morality varies from individual to individual by nature and should Not be legislated. The right to hold and profess whichever morals you like is one of our freedoms, so long as it doesn't directly lead to some guy killing people.

I disagree with the Phelps clan and everything that they say. They are a hate group, and I consider their existence a blight upon the earth. I would not be saddened if the whole lot were wiped out in a fiery bus crash. I would be saddened if someone murdered them, because I think throwing your life away on garbage is an unfortunate choice.

However, I think that taking away their right to protest within a reasonable distance of a mostly public funeral service would do a disservice to the funerals that could and should conceivably be protested. Using a different WBC funeral protest example, Michael Jackson. Had a different group turned out and protested instead the massive waste of Angeleno taxpayer cash on funeral security and shutting down of vital roads for an existentially bankrupt celebrity's funeral, to which the public were Not invited... would you say those people were in the moral wrong?

Again, it comes down to your perspective. The WBC folk 99% stay within their rights. Depending on the locale, their speech could be called obscenity, but since the other f-word doesn't appear to even be censored on here, the general public opinion on the word still seems to be out. They stand with their toes on the very last micron of the line, but so far they have kept their filth clean. I imagine that the lawyers are in the family both for internal legal counsel about what they can and cannot do within the law, and to retaliate strongly against (what we consider good) people who cross the line against them. And from their perspective, they are right. And though I disagree with their perspective, I would die for their right to hold it, and to tritely express that sentiment.

The reasons behind our founding fathers' philosophy included the willingness to fight for the individual's right to be individual, or the group's right to collectively hold the same nerve jangling ideals and exercise them within the broad extent of the law. They came from England, which at that point had a pretty lousy track record of kicking the dog out of people who went against the grain. There are limitations, such as anything which would reasonably lead to violence or life threatening public disruption. But so far Phelps & Co. haven't done that either.

Though WBC stand for vile things, it's not them or their stance I'm defending. It's the legal right for such Technically Peaceful groups to exist, whatever their philosophy, angle, or morality. If Phelps & Co. were taken down, that leaves open other fringe groups for takedown as well, including ones near and dear to whatever your leanings are. I absolutely do not blame SCOTUS for erring on the side of the 1st Amendment. Setting that precedent would be a slippery slope.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   
The one thing I have not seen here is mention of the fact this church used this fallen soldier's name in a hate filled tirade on their site. That has to at least count for slander or liable. How can that be considered "free speech"?

Also, if violence does ensue at one of these protests, what they are saying about the fallen would clearly be defined and categorized as "fighting words".

"Fighting words are words intentionally directed toward another person which are so venomous and full of malice as to cause the hearer to suffer emotional distress or incite him/her to immediately retaliate physically. Fighting words are not an excuse or defense for a retaliatory assault and battery. However, if they are so threatening as to cause apprehension, they can form the basis for a lawsuit for assault, even though the words alone don't constitute an assault.

The utterance of fighting words is not protected by the free speech protections of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The words are often evaluated not only by the words themselves, but the context in which they are spoken. Courts generally impose a requirement that the speaker intended to cause a breach of the peace or incite the hearer to violence."

I don't understand why there is a problem distinguishing what they do from real free speech. To add insult to injury, the Phelps clan does not even believe any of us will get to heaven no matter what we do. It's a Calvinist doctrine that only the "Elect" (which apparently only Phelps and his followers are) will get to heaven. I could emulate Mother Teresa, Jesus and Ghandi and still I would go to hell according to their (Phelps) beliefs. So they are not protesting because they are trying to save our souls. We can't get to heaven and be saved anyway because we are not of the elect.

So why protest like this since they know they're the only people God is letting in to Heaven? I'll tell you why.

They are bullies, trolls and are doing it to satisfy some hurt done to them long ago. My grandmother always said "the one squawkin' the loudest is the worst of the bunch when it came to cryin' about a problem." They need to be abusive. It's their crack. They're addicted to anger, stupidity and hate. Death will be the only thing that silences them. I just hope for their sake it isn't a violent one and another person's life is destroyed along with them.

To learn more about what makes Fred Phelps tick check out this article.
www.blank.org...



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by tncryptogal
The one thing I have not seen here is mention of the fact this church used this fallen soldier's name in a hate filled tirade on their site. That has to at least count for slander or liable. How can that be considered "free speech"?


Because with slander and libel, you have to prove that their statements caused demonstrable harm to the person they were directed at. What many people don’t seem to understand is that this person is already dead. He’s not at all affected by a silly sign saying that soldiers are fags. So no, it doesn’t really matter if they use his name or not, because they’re not causing any harm to anybody.


Also, if violence does ensue at one of these protests, what they are saying about the fallen would clearly be defined and categorized as "fighting words".

Please show me how their words can be considered “fighting words”. None of their signs had the soldiers name on them, and they use those signs for other protests as well, so you can’t prove that they were directed at the funeral goers. You also need to prove that they intended to start a fight, which you can’t because they say their intentions were to simply make a political statement. Also, the words are not “venomous and full of malice”. Have you never heard someone call another person ‘gay’ before?



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Yes this group has the right to do what they are doing. Should they? Absolutely not!

I live in Kansas and see them in the news more than I would like to. They are not only protesting soldier and homosexual funerals either. That is what their message is about but they protested a 14 year old girl's funeral here in Kansas last summer. She was kidnapped and murdered...how does that fit in with their protesting?

There are people here who have said "They are going to get themselves killed one of these days, someone will have enough" So to hear that in the news does not surprise me in the least.

They know the law and they are manipulating it to their advantage. The only way they will be stopped is by violence I am sad to say. I do not condone violence to solve problems but I sure would not be sad either if something happened to them.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Epiphron
 


There words hurt the reputation and any of those he left behind. If he had small kids or teenage kids for that matter, how much teasing and bullying of them would happen to them? What about a wife? Just because it is legal doesn't make it right. It's a fragile emotional state.

Answer to the second, it has been shown repeatedly that their way to fund their ridiculous behavior is to get someone mad enough to infringe on their rights so they can then sue the person for untold amounts of money. That's why they chose ComicCon. They were hoping some rich collector would lose his temper and they could leech off him for a while. That establishes a pattern of behavior in my book.

If anyone dared to do that when I was trying to quietly bury one of my kids, they would be punched in the face. Period. I don't care about their lawsuits because at that point I have nothing left to lose and you can't get blood from a stone. 50% of nothing is still nothing.


SMR

posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by nithaiah
 


Funerals, such as the one in this article, are private, not public.



morality varies from individual to individual by nature and should Not be legislated. The right to hold and profess whichever morals you like is one of our freedoms, so long as it doesn't directly lead to some guy killing people.

As silly as that sounds, you are right. But where does humanity come in when knowing or feeling what is right or wrong morally ? Just because some guy wrote down that I can think however I choose, does not make it right in the "Feeling" sense. It's almost like taking advantage of something inked on a piece of paper. I can do this just because it says so right there even though it is probably wrong to do so. A belief is in the mind. What part of their mind tells them it is OK to say such things and not wonder if it is hurting someone ? At that point it is "Hate" pure and simple and they should be arrested for it like anyone else.

They are hardly a "Peaceful" protesting group.

The thing is. I really doubt our "Founding Fathers" had any clue a group of such would take advantage of what they wrote. I can only imagine what they would write down today if they had knowledge of what a group of people like this would use it for.

I'll quote this one more time.



Hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, class, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, social status or political affiliation.

"Hate crime" generally refers to criminal acts that are seen to have been motivated by bias against one or more of the types above, or of their derivatives. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters (hate mail).

By definition, the are targeting people plain and simple. Harassment, Verbal Abuse or Insults.
"Hate Crime" They should be arrested.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
I have to stick with free speech on this one. They have every right to be horrible, they have a God given right to exercise their free will towards wickedness.

I really really want to meet them. I know that they will probably just call me a "fag enabler" or an "idolatrous Mary worshipping faggot" (Eastern Orthodox), but I really want to show them the Parable of the Wicked servant. If I can just get them to see themselves in the parable perhaps they could give up their judgments. I'm really concerned for them; go to Matthew 19:23. According to that parable, they are in grave danger of judgment. They have been forgiven their sins and have been freed from the law that would have condemned them and yet they go to others and judge them by the law that they were given reprieve from.

Everyone, they've had people leave before, you can get through to them if you show them the love of Christ. If they come to your town, do not judge them, spit at them, or curse them, but warn them. If there's anything we Christians should have learned from the WBC it's that antagonizing people in the name of Christ pushes them away. Go to them with the love of Christ, because they have no love of Christ in their hearts.

Pray for them



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   
I also think they should be allowed to protest. I absolutely HATE what they do and stand for but i believe in total freedom. While we may not be as free as some people think we are, i think we need to cling to all the freedom that we can. do i agree... no. Do i think they should be allowed to do it... yes. I want to be free to say what i believe, therefore they should be able to as well, otherwise i would be a hypocrite.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by wiggleworm
 


My friend, you cannot put out a fire with more fire. Killing one or even a few of them won’t stop them. Violence will only prompt them to continue what they are doing with much more vigor.

The problem lies at the source of their hatred. It is no secret that religion has been used to condone division and violence for thousands of years. When a book tells you that eternal suffering is just punishment for those who don’t agree with you, then it’s not surprising when people build walls between believers and nonbelievers, instead of bridges. They have no problem saying that a dead person is going to hell because their book tells them it is so, and that is all they know.

I know many will say that they are not truly preaching what the bible says. That their message is hateful and that is not what God is about. But the truth is, the bible is filled with so many contradictions that their words can be backed up by scripture just as well as anyone else’s.

This is not an issue of evil people being evil, but an issue of religious extremism. Killing one of them will do just as much good as killing an islamic extremist would. Nothing. So long as our society embraces these divisive and superstitious belief systems, then people like Shirley Phelps will always exist.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
That's not very church like...treat others as you wish to be treated...kind of behavoir. They are misguided in their beliefs...they should feel compassion and sorrow for that father. Lest God would smite one of them with a gay child and or a dead son.....How horrible. They do this In the name of their church....it just sickens me.
edit on 4-3-2011 by blazenresearcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Wanted to add my thoughts, since this is such a difficult discussion. Trying to find a balance between upholding the law, especially the 1st amendment, and having some humanity is difficult in this situation.
I can't really side with the law on this. I believe the Phelps Klan, like the KKK and Nazis, are sub-human. They choose a base, hateful existence that has no place in a peaceful, progressive society. We're not a peaceful, progressive society... yet. Not while we have these kinds of "people". Unfortunately, for the law to take action against them could set a bad precedent for future handling of the 1st amendment.
My thoughts could be summed as thus- I can't condone violent action against the leaders of the Phelps Klan, but I sure wouldn't condemn it, either. Their continuing campaign of abject hate is a foul cancer.
I don't believe the law applies to them any more than to gangrene. I don't believe I'd have a place on the supreme court, providing an unbiased view of the law. The constitution is important, but our humanity is infinitely more important. Westboro puts both to the test, and there are no easy answers, only compromise. We shouldn't have to compromise love and peace.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by SMR
 


Both sides are wrong.......Of course its wrong for anyone to slander the dead because as Jesus said " Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone".

I do not condone homosexuality to be a good healthy lifestyle choice in ones life but nevertheless it is a choice and everyone is allowed to make one.

I understand the Fathers anger because I am sure we would all have it if it was our son, but that doesn't make it right to go drawing gunfire upon those holding hateful signs up.

The people who are holding these signs up are a disgrace to the human race.........agreed.

Jesus was about compassion and would never have acted in such a way. However even Jesus had anger towards those defiling the temple, and expressed it.

We should be angry, but no we should not open fire on our fellow human brothers and sisters despite their ignorance.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


God complex holier than though syndrome if ever I saw it, let's see you "react calmly" if one of your family gets picketed by these creeps let's see the red mist descend and all logic and rational thought disappear from your mind.

It happens to everyone because it's in our gene's if i held my finger an inch from your face and screamed at how your mother/father/brother is a "fag or fag enabler" let's see you keep your cool then.


SMR

posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by iLoGiCViZiOnS
 


Just to make it clear. Mr. Snyder never said he or anyone else should fire upon them.
He was simply saying that at some point they are going to picket the wrong funeral and someone may just have enough of it and do something horrible to the group.
I guess you could say he is looking out for the interest of the protesters. Funny in a way really.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Everyone is so angry over this. What they are doing may be morally wrong, but NOT Constitutionally.

That is why KKK rallies still go on in plain sight. Yes, we can be upset over the injustice of ignorance, BUT it does us no good to quash it. Or to heighten it with violence or threats.


Use WB as an example on how not to be... They will understand once they die what they have done wrong.

It's not our right to judge. If all of you here feel so strongly, follow the church wherever they go and picket them. They list everywhere they'll be to entice such an act...


SMR

posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Then perhaps the laws should be changed. Made more clear. Hate is hate no matter how you display it. In a march. On a sign. Hate should not be protected by any Constitution, period. If you allow it to be protected, then when will we change as human beings.
Just to be clear - "I Hate Monday's" is different from "I Hate Gays"



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by nithaiah
Something I've noticed in this thread is that quite a few people have somehow misequated "morality" (whatever the 'ell that means...) as trumping law of the land. This seems to me a bit of a major problem, as morality varies from individual to individual by nature and should Not be legislated. The right to hold and profess whichever morals you like is one of our freedoms, so long as it doesn't directly lead to some guy killing people.

I disagree with the Phelps clan and everything that they say. They are a hate group, and I consider their existence a blight upon the earth. I would not be saddened if the whole lot were wiped out in a fiery bus crash. I would be saddened if someone murdered them, because I think throwing your life away on garbage is an unfortunate choice.

However, I think that taking away their right to protest within a reasonable distance of a mostly public funeral service would do a disservice to the funerals that could and should conceivably be protested. Using a different WBC funeral protest example, Michael Jackson. Had a different group turned out and protested instead the massive waste of Angeleno taxpayer cash on funeral security and shutting down of vital roads for an existentially bankrupt celebrity's funeral, to which the public were Not invited... would you say those people were in the moral wrong?

Again, it comes down to your perspective. The WBC folk 99% stay within their rights. Depending on the locale, their speech could be called obscenity, but since the other f-word doesn't appear to even be censored on here, the general public opinion on the word still seems to be out. They stand with their toes on the very last micron of the line, but so far they have kept their filth clean. I imagine that the lawyers are in the family both for internal legal counsel about what they can and cannot do within the law, and to retaliate strongly against (what we consider good) people who cross the line against them. And from their perspective, they are right. And though I disagree with their perspective, I would die for their right to hold it, and to tritely express that sentiment.

The reasons behind our founding fathers' philosophy included the willingness to fight for the individual's right to be individual, or the group's right to collectively hold the same nerve jangling ideals and exercise them within the broad extent of the law. They came from England, which at that point had a pretty lousy track record of kicking the dog out of people who went against the grain. There are limitations, such as anything which would reasonably lead to violence or life threatening public disruption. But so far Phelps & Co. haven't done that either.

Though WBC stand for vile things, it's not them or their stance I'm defending. It's the legal right for such Technically Peaceful groups to exist, whatever their philosophy, angle, or morality. If Phelps & Co. were taken down, that leaves open other fringe groups for takedown as well, including ones near and dear to whatever your leanings are. I absolutely do not blame SCOTUS for erring on the side of the 1st Amendment. Setting that precedent would be a slippery slope.



Aren't laws themselves founded on basic morality? Morals are already legislated.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by iLoGiCViZiOnS
 

Strangely enough, I agree, though I do not condone Christianity to be a good healthy lifestyle choice in ones life.




top topics



 
30
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join