posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 12:01 PM
It would seem that within American culture there are many bottomless moral sinkholes. I don't doubt other countries carry their own equivalences, but
is there not a level of ethical context that can be used as a drawn line of acceptable protest? Can one be argued?
In all honesty, I am biased against Westboro' Baptists as much as I am against all forms of religion, but the Baptisits are an entirely different
breed of fundamentalists. These buggers do not only enjoy the deaths of their own compatriots, they want to trample and desecrate their memory. Now, I
am a very moral, ethical and empathetic person...I don't need a book or a priest, a rabbi, or an iman to teach me how to be moral or how to act
ethically. My own life experience, and my love for humanity, have been the greatest guides I could ever wish for.
These Baptisits preach a hate of 'righteousness', and such hate cannot be defended by, or hide behind, the right of religious freedom...nor should
it. Not by any stretch of the imagination are they preaching the Christian code of love and 'samarition' (probably not a real word, but I use it
adverbially pertaining to the samaritan parable) that Jesus is alleged to have taught. There is a need, a societal one, for their mindset to be argued
It is essential that we do not remain inert or feel morally powerless in making a response. Morals do have common denominators that we can all share
and agree on, and at some point, moral consensus (not mob consensus) must override certain rights when behaviour oversteps the protective boundaries
of those rights. I am not arguing for any particular 'right' or 'rights' to be taken away from anyone, as I believe 'rights' become sacrosanct
to civilised progress, and if we going to lose them, we must do so with great reluctance, argument and fight. Yet, if any particular 'right' loses
its power to reflect the moral code and ethical behaviour of contemporary society, are we not duty bound to revisit it, debate its usefulness, and
update it as necessary, or replace it entirely? What we must never do is take any 'right' for granted.
When I see the Westboro Baptists behave the way they do at their protests. When I view the tone and content of their protest, my perception is that
they overstep the protective boundary of the right to religious freedom. That they are abrogating their responsibility to uphold the right to
religious freedom, and that they are bringing that right into disrepute. It is long overdue that society reminds them the limits of their right to
religious freedom, and their responsibility to remain within them.
As far as I can morally discern, they do not have a right to descrate the memory of those killed in overseas conflicts, those of alternative
sexuality, and especially the 18 children and 6 adults whom died at the hands of the sociopathic Lanza. That is not a right I can agree with.