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.

 

Rumors Fly of Westboro Baptist Church Being Gassed, Blocked, and Chased

page: 4
16
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2011 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrWendal
According to them, they are the only ones going to Heaven. Funny thing about this group that no one ever wants to talk about is how their hate filled message actually does come from the Bible.


This is 100% true and I have noticed the same fact and how it makes people uncomfortable.

These people are basically just super-strict, literalist Calvinists, at least theologically. I am of the mind that this group is really a money-making racket based on lawsuits, although it might have started out more sincerely and there is indications that they take theology seriously (although they warp it by going all-in on issues they like and ignoring everything else).

Where do you think the Pilgrim Fathers would feel more at home: Sitting around the Phelps living room discussing the nuances of Lapsarianism, or at a Gay Pride parade? Not saying its right, far from it -- but as noted, people are quick to ignore this.




posted on May, 30 2011 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by jude11
Freedoms and Rights belong to EVERYONE.

If it is denied to the less popular, it's neither a freedom nor a right but simply permission. "May I have my freedoms....Please?"

While I DO NOT agree with the agenda of these people, where is the line drawn for their rights that they are exercising?

If they have their freedoms of Speech, Non-Violent Protesting and the right to gather in a public place taken away, where does it end? With you? Me?

Again, I DO NOT agree with them but they are not breaking any laws. If new laws are created to stop them because people just don't agree with them and don't like their message, it will be another case of destroying the rights of the entire Country.

Difficult situation I agree, but if a law is passed for them it's enforced on everyone and if people cheer for the police denying them their rights, what happens when it comes back and those cheering people have their rights denied down the road?

It won't be entertaining anymore.

Personally, I would rather have citizens take care of this bunch....and hope they do it in a back alley. That's Justice!


The First Amendment was designed to allow citizens to protest their government, not to allow a bunch of scumbags to cause more pain and suffering to those who have already had more than their fair share. If they want to spread their hate, fine, let the do it on the Capitol steps. They need to stay the hell away from funerals.
edit on 5/30/2011 by OldCorp because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
First off, there are no longer any "fighting words" clauses, anywhere. I can get in your face and heap abuse on you, your mother


Yeah, of course you can say what you like over the anonymous medium of the internet, but I wonder how well those ''fighting words'' would hold up if you actually physically said them to me in the real-world ?

My above paragraph wasn't attempting to be overtly aggressive, but just a reality check to challenge your opinion which is largely based upon a tatty and archaic 230-year-old document which was signed by a motley bunch of slave-owners, genocidal maniacs and drunkards.

The First Amendment of the US Constitution has a number of exemptions to it that have been granted by the US Supreme Court. Depictions of child pornography, for example, have been defined as illegal, yet the yapping ''mah rights'' brigade never question this violation of the First Amendment.


I believe that the offence of ''fighting words'' is still officially on the US statute books, so I'm puzzled why the WBC hate-mongers haven't been detained on suspicion of violating this law.


Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
You have no legal right to lay a finger on me because of that (of course, if you feel threatened by me, or if I make a verbal threat, you DO get to defend yourself - "YOU'RE A BOOGER HEAD!" is protected, "I'M GOING TO KICK YOUR ASS!" is not)


How on earth is ''you're a booger head'' even comparable to people unveiling slogans in a disaster zone, saying: ''God hates fags'', ''you will eat your babies'' and generally trolling, mocking and goading the people in a city that has a lost an inordinate number of lives in the past week ?


Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
You have the right to express whatever you want so long as it does not demonstrably cause harm to another (whether through defamation or intimidation)


This is why most British people just sigh and roll our eyes at you antiquated yanks.

The idea of living in a country which is controlled and held back by some archaic, dog-eared 230-year-old parchment is just completely bizarre to a modern and socially evolving country such as ours.

We normally like to change our rules and laws by common sense and logic, rather than having our whole way of life hamstrung and dictated by a set of arbitrary recommendations that were composed by a group of obnoxious toffs in 1791.



edit on 30-5-2011 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by jude11
Freedoms and Rights belong to EVERYONE.

If it is denied to the less popular, it's neither a freedom nor a right but simply permission. "May I have my freedoms....Please?"

While I DO NOT agree with the agenda of these people, where is the line drawn for their rights that they are exercising?

If they have their freedoms of Speech, Non-Violent Protesting and the right to gather in a public place taken away, where does it end? With you? Me?

Again, I DO NOT agree with them but they are not breaking any laws. If new laws are created to stop them because people just don't agree with them and don't like their message, it will be another case of destroying the rights of the entire Country.

Difficult situation I agree, but if a law is passed for them it's enforced on everyone and if people cheer for the police denying them their rights, what happens when it comes back and those cheering people have their rights denied down the road?

It won't be entertaining anymore.

Personally, I would rather have citizens take care of this bunch....and hope they do it in a back alley. That's Justice!









edit on 29-5-2011 by jude11 because: (no reason given)


Think about it, if it was my loved one that died in Joplin, I would do the same thing to them, I dont give a **** about freedom of speech if I was in those Joplinis' shoes. Some people should be punished for lack of compassion.
edit on 30-5-2011 by MikeBoss because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Nah, I disagree with this automatic ''right'' to free speech with no legal consequences or accountability.

There are quite a few legal exemptions to the First Amendment of the US Constitution, such as slander, defamation, obscenity and, not least, the ''fighting words'' restriction to free speech, which I'm pretty sure that they can be reasonably suspected of falling foul of.


First off, there are no longer any "fighting words" clauses, anywhere. I can get in your face and heap abuse on you, your mother, and everything you hold dear all day long, and you have no legal right to lay a finger on me because of that (of course, if you feel threatened by me, or if I make a verbal threat, you DO get to defend yourself - "YOU'RE A BOOGER HEAD!" is protected, "I'M GOING TO KICK YOUR ASS!" is not)

You have the right to express whatever you want so long as it does not demonstrably cause harm to another (whether through defamation or intimidation)


Texas Penal Code, Chapter 42, is alive and well my friend:

CHAPTER 42. DISORDERLY CONDUCT AND RELATED OFFENSESSec. 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly: (1) uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;(2) makes an offensive gesture or display in a public place, and the gesture or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;(3) creates, by chemical means, a noxious and unreasonable odor in a public place;(4) abuses or threatens a person in a public place in an obviously offensive manner;(5) makes unreasonable noise in a public place other than a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government Code, or in or near a private residence that he has no right to occupy;(6) fights with another in a public place;(7) discharges a firearm in a public place other than a public road or a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government Code;(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;(9) discharges a firearm on or across a public road;(10) exposes his anus or genitals in a public place and is reckless about whether another may be present who will be offended or alarmed by his act; or(11) for a lewd or unlawful purpose: (A) enters on the property of another and looks into a dwelling on the property through any window or other opening in the dwelling;(B) while on the premises of a hotel or comparable establishment, looks into a guest room not the person's own through a window or other opening in the room; or(C) while on the premises of a public place, looks into an area such as a restroom or shower stall or changing or dressing room that is designed to provide privacy to a person using the area.(b) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(4) that the actor had significant provocation for his abusive or threatening conduct.(c) For purposes of this section
1) an act is deemed to occur in a public place or near a private residence if it produces its offensive or proscribed consequences in the public place or near a private residence; and(2) a noise is presumed to be unreasonable if the noise exceeds a decibel level of 85 after the person making the noise receives notice from a magistrate or peace officer that the noise is a public nuisance.(d) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor unless committed under Subsection (a)(7) or (a)(8), in which event it is a Class B misdemeanor.(e) It is a defense to prosecution for an offense under Subsection (a)(7) or (9) that the person who discharged the firearm had a reasonable fear of bodily injury to the person or to another by a dangerous wild animal as defined by Section 822.101, Health and Safety Code.
edit on 30-5-2011 by kinnerarity because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
First off, there are no longer any "fighting words" clauses, anywhere. I can get in your face and heap abuse on you, your mother


The First Amendment of the US Constitution has a number of exemptions to it that have been granted by the US Supreme Court. Depictions of child pornography, for example, have been defined as illegal, yet the yapping ''mah rights'' brigade never question this violation of the First Amendment.



Are you saying that child pornography should be "protected speech" under the 1st amendment?



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   
If I had gone through the tornado in Joplin, was picking through wreckage each day, was seeing and smelling death, watching my friends, neighbor's or family devastated... if it were my own family laying dead in the morgue, it would be real real hard for me to give a wit about WBC's free speech rights.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by silent thunder

Originally posted by MrWendal
According to them, they are the only ones going to Heaven. Funny thing about this group that no one ever wants to talk about is how their hate filled message actually does come from the Bible.


This is 100% true and I have noticed the same fact and how it makes people uncomfortable.

These people are basically just super-strict, literalist Calvinists, at least theologically. I am of the mind that this group is really a money-making racket based on lawsuits, although it might have started out more sincerely and there is indications that they take theology seriously (although they warp it by going all-in on issues they like and ignoring everything else).

Where do you think the Pilgrim Fathers would feel more at home: Sitting around the Phelps living room discussing the nuances of Lapsarianism, or at a Gay Pride parade? Not saying its right, far from it -- but as noted, people are quick to ignore this.


That is not true. The Phelps have a one sided view of christianity. Yes the bible preaches against sexual immorality, but Jesus taught forgiveness and love. The Phelps kick it old testiment. Also, as a Christian, it' your duty to save souls. The Phelps have blatantly stated that they are not in it for soul saving in the BBC documentary. The bible is a BIG book. If you pick and choose scriptures, you'll find that you can justify anything you want. That's not the way it works though. You have to take God's word as a whole. Not just choose the scriptures that fit your agenda.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by britt
 



dont mean to derail thread.. just curious....

why do christians reject/or whatever u want to call it parts of the old testament and accept others? would this be a situation in which one is being selective to promote their viewpoint (fit your agenda) as these WBC folks are doing? sure they promote the hate field/legalist side of the old testament. Other christians choose to reject this side for other parts of the old testament. I understand when one says that Jesus came and showed us the new covenant we are to live under that the old testament is the old covenant etc. But if you are going to consider the bible as a whole why would u reject anything in the old testament? IE.... slavery. Seems that christians say that those old laws are antiquated and they pick and choose which ones are antiquated? for example christians still keep the laws against homosexuality from the old testament among other things. Pick and choose aesthetic.


edit on 30-5-2011 by krossfyter because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by jude11
Freedoms and Rights belong to EVERYONE.

If it is denied to the less popular, it's neither a freedom nor a right but simply permission. "May I have my freedoms....Please?"

If they have their freedoms of Speech, Non-Violent Protesting and the right to gather in a public place taken away, where does it end? With you? Me?


edit on 29-5-2011 by jude11 because: (no reason given)
Nah... they don't deserve their freedoms. They use it as a weapon to hurt others and those kind of people don't deserve to have it.
edit on 30-5-2011 by Alienmojo because: Chopped some off quote...



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
There is freedom of speech.

At the same time, though, there's a right to kick the living snot out of, well T&C forbids my vulgarity, but I think you get the point.


Actually assault is against the law. Maybe I missed that part of the constitution.

No one has the right to assault someone, no matter how you feel about what they said. ATS champion of the free and downtrodden, unless its that other guy, then just beat him up.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alienmojo
Nah... they don't deserve their freedoms. They use it as a weapon to hurt others and those kind of people don't deserve to have it.
edit on 30-5-2011 by Alienmojo because: Chopped some off quote...


I feel that anyone that enjoys dancing with the stars uses their opinions to harm other people. I get to take away their rights too? This thread did a wonderful job of highlighting how subjective most people's "truths" really are. I sure as hell am not going to defend the churchfolk there for even a second but I am not sure many posts in this thread make it look like they are the only nuts that need a little gated community to go hide from reality in.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by krossfyter
reply to post by britt
 



dont mean to derail thread.. just curious....

why do christians reject/or whatever u want to call it parts of the old testament and accept others? would this be a situation in which one is being selective to promote their viewpoint (fit your agenda) as these WBC folks are doing? sure they promote the hate field/legalist side of the old testament. Other christians choose to reject this side for other parts of the old testament. I understand when one says that Jesus came and showed us the new covenant we are to live under that the old testament is the old covenant etc. But if you are going to consider the bible as a whole why would u reject anything in the old testament? IE.... slavery. Seems that christians say that those old laws are antiquated and they pick and choose which ones are antiquated? for example christians still keep the laws against homosexuality from the old testament among other things. Pick and choose aesthetic.


edit on 30-5-2011 by krossfyter because: (no reason given)


Alot of Christians do blatantly ignore the old testament, just like you say. The way I take it is that that the sins mentioned in the old testament are still sins, but when Jesus came to Earth he taught that love, peace, and kindness are equally as important. So, as a christian, if I meet a gay person, I acknowledge that it's a sin, but I also acknowledge that I sin too, and I'm no better than him. I definately wouldn't hate anyone for being a common sinner just like me.

Infact it wasn't very christian of me to start this thread in joy. As a christan I am not supposed to judge anyone, even the Phelps. Some sins are virtually inavoidable. We're human, but Jesus said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
**And about slavery, the Bible never outright promoted it. I'm not a pastor or anything close, though, so I definately don't have all the answers. This is just my understanding.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 01:39 AM
link   
Freedom of speech does not give these idiots the right to disturb your peace. This is no different then calling the police because you neighbor won't shut up thier yapping dog. WBC is nothing but a bunch of yapping dogs This is disturbing the peace, harassment, and inciting violence. These idiots should be locked up. They are not picketing government or corrupt businesses etc. for a legit cause they are harrasing families mourning thier dead. They have no legitimate reason to be there, they are violating the rights of the families to peacefully mourn thier dead and go about thier lives. There is no natural right to h harass folks unwarranted. What if they came to your wedding and did the same thing? Or stood out in front your house and verbally assaulted you? You would have them arrested! They are just unruly neighbors out of control. Glad to see Joplin got it right!



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
Freedom of speech does not give these idiots the right to disturb your peace.


Guess you better inform the authorities that continue to fail to make an arrest based on that. I have found very few "protests" do not disturb someone's peace. That is what a protest is. I am all fine with everyone's opinions on these people. Mine are not that far off. Unfortunately in America you do not decide how and when to enforce laws based on the reasoning behind that protest. Sounds like you think all protests should be done quietly, out of the public eye, out of the way of the target of their protest. That is the same thing as not being allowed to protest. What are they protesting? Apparently nothing. That is not my call or your call though, is it? These people suck. What they do sucks. This country is full of people that think other people suck. If my opinion had the same force of power many of you wish yours did, anyone that spent 6 months telling me that I absolutely had to go see Avatar would be in prison for disturbing my peace. None of them needed to yap at me about it. They were not invited to yap at me about it. It bothered me to no end to hear about it. Oh well.

The reason the WBC is as successful as they are is because they get people to hate them so much that people want to someone make America no longer apply to them. They are a bunch of psychotic lawyers that just want to go out, make you mad, and get you to want to take their rights away from them.

Most of you are helping them win. I ignore them and you would be amazed at how little they bother me.

The last funeral I was at was disturbed by alcohol and two feuding sides of a family. I would have preferred there was some church outside the gates yelling about all the gay people that were not involved in any manner anyway. Maybe some of you can help me change the laws so that people that are just jerks in the family or drink too much have no right to go to funerals too.

It will not take long before a group of people feel that whatever you believe in, stand up for, or shout about is distasteful, hurtful, and should probably be exempt from the freedom that gave you the right to do it.

Maybe I just see too much of a correlation between this and what your government has been doing. The WBC folks went out and made protesting look ugly and helped regular people hate it. Then when cops wanted to protest losing the right to bargain for safety issues and equipment, it was so easy for so many Americans to cast these cops aside too as just lazy whiners that needed to go home. The same plan people on ATS keep screaming they woke up to seems to be working just fine anyway.
edit on 31-5-2011 by Antiquated1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 04:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Antiquated1
 


Antiquated1
Guess you better inform the authorities that continue to fail to make an arrest based on that. I have found very few "protests" do not disturb someone's peace.

hawkiye
Just because authorities don't know know or understand their job doesn't negate the facts. Joplin authorities did theirs. Harassing someone for no reason and calling it a protest does not justify the harassment. Your rights stop where mine begin. You can't come to my house and start harassing me for no good reason and call it a protest. Protests are usually aimed at government abuse. You have no right to harass a family mourning their dead and call it a protest under any auspice of the constitution or law!

Antiquated1
Unfortunately in America you do not decide how and when to enforce laws based on the reasoning behind that protest.

hawkiye
And of course you need to study some American history and the federal and state constitutions because that is precisely what we do in America. All the constitutions have language to the effect that "all power is vested in the people" The reasoning behind any act and HOW YOU CARRY IT OUT makes all the difference and has for hundreds of years of jurisprudence. Free speech does not allow me to stand in front of your house all night and yell obscenities at you because I think you are a sinner and keep you up all night and call it a protest. With your reasoning people should be able to do that and call it free speech.

Antiquated1
Sounds like you think all protests should be done quietly, out of the public eye, out of the way of the target of their protest.

hawkiye
Sounds like you need to brush up in reading comprehension for I have said nothing of the kind. You need to learn the difference between unwarranted harassment and legitimate protest. Who have the people mourning their dead abused? What government agency or public company do they belong to? According to your logic I guess I can get a bull horn and sit out in front of your house as long as I want and harass you and call it a protest because you don't have the same religious belief as me. Maybe I can dump my garbage in your yard too after all I am not harming you and that is freedom of expression isn't it?... Sigh!

Antiquated1
If my opinion had the same force of power many of you wish yours did, anyone that spent 6 months telling me that I absolutely had to go see Avatar would be in prison for disturbing my peace. None of them needed to yap at me about it. They were not invited to yap at me about it. It bothered me to no end to hear about it. Oh well.

hawkiye
You have a strange idea of what harassment is. People on an Internet board telling you to see avatar is not harassment cause you are free to not read it. Friends or family telling you to see it is not someone with a bull horn harassing you. You are free not to associate with them. Now if they stood outside your house with signs and a bull horn day and night screaming at you to see avatar you certainly would consider that disturbing the peace.

Antiquated1
It will not take long before a group of people feel that whatever you believe in, stand up for, or shout about is distasteful, hurtful, and should probably be exempt from the freedom that gave you the right to do it.

hawkiye
Ridiculous, it has noting to do with being distasteful it is harassment and disturbing the peace period by how they carry it out. As i said it doesn't matter what your beliefs are you can't just come to my house and shout you beliefs with a bull horn day and night and call it a protest. If you wanna leave some literature at my door hoping I am interested you can do that and that's not harassment. if you can't see the difference then I don't know what to tell you. Yeah these folks are liar lawyers and tie up the courts with the same kind of non-sense you are using to justify their actions.

Antiquated1
Maybe I just see too much of a correlation between this and what your government has been doing.

hawkiye
What you're not even an American??? GTFOOH!




top topics



 
16
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join