Figleaf Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 Watch this right to the end, it's worth it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 Wow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 I didn't watch the whole thing, can't stand rap for one thing, but as soon as I heard the name Phelps I turned it off. They are a totally whacked out fringe group, the members are all related. I saw O'Reilly interview a couple of them last year, one or two of the sisters are lawyers which helps them keep one step ahead of the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 The downside to freedom of speech . Fred Phelps and his ilk are the lowest of the lowest scum there is . They protest soldiers funerals, everything is fags this and fags that. I am really surprised that they are in fact still alive considering the amount of hate they generate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad_Michael Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 Watch this right to the end, it's worth it. There is nothing 'fascinating' or even interesting about hatemongers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian Blue Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 I've heard them speak before, and it just shows how far people will go to distort any religious text in order to find ways of supporting their own bigotry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 There is nothing 'fascinating' or even interesting about hatemongers. I happen to think those at the furthest fringes of society are fascinating. Fascinating can be good or bad depending on your viewpoint. I despise the Phelps, but I find the whys and hows fascinating. I am sure I wouldnt if it were my brothers funeral they were protesting. What I find is fascinating is how they came to be this way. The whys and hows of their actions is worth study. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 I have no doubt in my mind their leader is possessed or oppressed by a demon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted March 21, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 Did any of you guys get to the end of it? The pay-off is the atheist's editorial comments after the interview. He's 100% right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slavik44 Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 Did any of you guys get to the end of it? The pay-off is the atheist's editorial comments after the interview. He's 100% right. It is tough to say wether or not he is "100%" right, but it is very accurate to say that most christians have done a cut and paste job on their holy book and selected the verses they like...and decided to call that the bible. Most people try to work around the old testament...try to find a way to exclude certain verses (in both the old and new), or try to explain away certain parts of their book. Because lets face it, alot of it is morally repulsive. Just like the Phelps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted March 21, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 She sure gave the Amish a going over! Again 100% right ... artificial lines around 'good' technology and 'bad' technology are pretty silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian Blue Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 She should leave the Amish alone, they aren't hurting anybody. I'm not sure, it doesn't seem like the guy doing the interview is a religious scholar. Besides being a hardcore atheist, he doesn't seem to have much of an education in religion. I'm just as distrustful of the guy that was doing the interview, as I am of the religious right. It seem's fairly totalitarian to myself for someone to make such broad generalization's without realizing that even amongst religion's their is debate about the religious texts and how they came about. I listened to his other video, and he just seemed pretty ignorant and arrogant. He sound's like that atheist version of Pat Robertson. He seem's to be just as hateful as Phelps. I wouldn't put to much stock into what some guy that comes off as just another raving lunatic. His insertion of how much he hates those "F%$king Christian pieces of sh%t", really doesn't make me want to become an atheist since it seem's more intolerant than most Christian denomination's. Once again as long as a religious group isn't hurting anyone, then I don't see the point in being an intolerant bigot in the name of atheism. I strongly disagree with what Dobson, Falwell, and Robertson do, however I'm not gonna call all people of faith "f%$king Christian pieces of sh%t". People have been killed by atheists as well. As well many Christian's have been behind progressive movement's, one only has to look at Tommy Douglas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted March 21, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 She should leave the Amish alone, they aren't hurting anybody. She believes the Bible commands people to admonish and correct their 'neighbor' to save him from God's wrath. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian Blue Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 That's what she believes, if you look at early Christian history you'll find alot of disagreement and debate over the bible. In fact early Christian's had many different beliefs from the Christian's of today. I for one think that if the church want's to be more appealing to people they should openly question and debate some parts of the bible, as it has been changed accidentally as well as on purpose. I don't see how it'll hurt the church, if anything it will make the church more modern. As well I think Phelp's herself directly contradicts many of the teaching's from the New Testament. It's also important to remember that's her interpetation of the bible, that's not coming from a religious scholar, or someone who studies religion. I don't think she really follow's much of what the Sermon on the Mount teaches. However she rarely uses teaching from Jesus. If Phelps believes America is headed for the same fate as Sodom, then one would think her, and her family would be leaving as soon as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted March 21, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 That's what she believes, if you look at early Christian history you'll find alot of disagreement and debate over the bible. In fact early Christian's had many different beliefs from the Christian's of today. I for one think that if the church want's to be more appealing to people they should openly question and debate some parts of the bible, as it has been changed accidentally as well as on purpose. I don't see how it'll hurt the church, if anything it will make the church more modern. As well I think Phelp's herself directly contradicts many of the teaching's from the New Testament. It's also important to remember that's her interpetation of the bible, that's not coming from a religious scholar, or someone who studies religion. I don't think she really follow's much of what the Sermon on the Mount teaches. However she rarely uses teaching from Jesus. If Phelps believes America is headed for the same fate as Sodom, then one would think her, and her family would be leaving as soon as possible. Well, you're right that the Westboro baptists don't have much to do with the New Testament, at least as far as I can tell. I wonder if technically they are 'Christian' at all? But why would they leave America just because it's Sodom Time? As she says, God's mercy is the only salvation. Fleeing his wrath won't do a damn thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 22, 2007 Report Share Posted March 22, 2007 But why would they leave America just because it's Sodom Time? As she says, God's mercy is the only salvation. Fleeing his wrath won't do a damn thing. They cant . They sue and cash cheques. It is suspected that they picket Soldiers funeral in an attempt to be hit or worse, then they can sue and cash in. People marching against them , ie soldeirs funerals, are instructed not to touch them m go near them nor jostle/harass them. Their is a biker organization that follows them around to the funerals to counter act the chants etc. The bikers wave huge flags and rev the engines of the bikes to drown the Phelps chants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted March 22, 2007 Report Share Posted March 22, 2007 But why would they leave America just because it's Sodom Time? As she says, God's mercy is the only salvation. Fleeing his wrath won't do a damn thing. They cant . They sue and cash cheques. It is suspected that they picket Soldiers funeral in an attempt to be hit or worse, then they can sue and cash in. People marching against them , ie soldeirs funerals, are instructed not to touch them m go near them nor jostle/harass them. Their is a biker organization that follows them around to the funerals to counter act the chants etc. The bikers wave huge flags and rev the engines of the bikes to drown the Phelps chants. Can't the cops just bust them for disturbing the peace. Sure it might not hold up in court, but they get carted off to the klink for a brief stay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 22, 2007 Report Share Posted March 22, 2007 Can't the cops just bust them for disturbing the peace. Sure it might not hold up in court, but they get carted off to the klink for a brief stay. Freedom of speech . And I believe they apply for a licence to protest the funerals. As it is now, the police are instructed to keep them separate and allow them to get out of dodge and move to the next town. It is far easier for them to deal with it this way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted March 22, 2007 Report Share Posted March 22, 2007 Can't the cops just bust them for disturbing the peace. Sure it might not hold up in court, but they get carted off to the klink for a brief stay. Freedom of speech . And I believe they apply for a licence to protest the funerals. As it is now, the police are instructed to keep them separate and allow them to get out of dodge and move to the next town. It is far easier for them to deal with it this way. I can see that, but to spin it this way, shouldn't the cops haul them off in the cop car, they are disturbing the peace after all, if some guy at the funeral goes up and clocks the protester we have a problem. In the interest of the safety of the protesters, the cops should cart their ass off so they can protest somewhere else or to the klink. Disturbing the peace is pretty arbitrary, and of course it won't hold up in court, it was never meant too, just temporarily thinking of safety. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 22, 2007 Report Share Posted March 22, 2007 I can see that, but to spin it this way, shouldn't the cops haul them off in the cop car, they are disturbing the peace after all, if some guy at the funeral goes up and clocks the protester we have a problem. In the interest of the safety of the protesters, the cops should cart their ass off so they can protest somewhere else or to the klink. Disturbing the peace is pretty arbitrary, and of course it won't hold up in court, it was never meant too, just temporarily thinking of safety. Oh I know what you are saying but frankly the cops want them gone. So leave them be, they will leave as the funeral does. This is all over in a half hour so let it be. Let me give you a Canadian analogy. The cops, military, fed agents et al "could have" gone into Kanawhakee (sp?) or Caledonia and arrested them all ...but they didnt. The can gets opened , the worms all spill out. Look at Iperwash and the political and personal fallout that entailed. It is not an exact analogy, but it works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted March 22, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2007 I can see that, but to spin it this way, shouldn't the cops haul them off in the cop car, they are disturbing the peace after all, ... Ah, but in legal terms they are exercising their first amendment rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted March 22, 2007 Report Share Posted March 22, 2007 I can see that, but to spin it this way, shouldn't the cops haul them off in the cop car, they are disturbing the peace after all, ... Ah, but in legal terms they are exercising their first amendment rights. They can exercise their first amendment rights elsewhere, when exercising those rights infringes on keeping an orderly society that's called disturbing the peace and is a crime, (albeit a very minor one) If the cop wants to remove the problem he has every right to do so, whether it holds up in court is a whole other ballgame. Guyser good point, I don't know if you remember or not the whole protester getting pepper sprayed incident. Something about human rights protesters blocking traffic. Anyhow the RCMP put a stop to it rather quickly (too quickly). Don't know about if any arrests were made, but the officer doing that had stripes on his shoulders (he was a staff sargeant). Another incident happened at home concerning FN with fishing, the cops had to tell them to leave because they couldn't handle the protesters if it went south. It's all discretion of the CO's and it's about safety first of all. I don't think those guys in the states protesting the funerals would make as big a stink as the FNs at Caledonia. Case by case issues all of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted March 22, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2007 I can see that, but to spin it this way, shouldn't the cops haul them off in the cop car, they are disturbing the peace after all, ... Ah, but in legal terms they are exercising their first amendment rights. They can exercise their first amendment rights elsewhere, when exercising those rights infringes on keeping an orderly society that's called disturbing the peace and is a crime, (albeit a very minor one) No, amigo. The consititution is primary. People who are exercising their first amendment rights (peacably) can't be disturbing the peace. If the cop wants to remove the problem he has every right to do so, whether it holds up in court is a whole other ballgame. Ummm... if it doesn't hold up in court, then the cop did NOT have ANY right to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted March 22, 2007 Report Share Posted March 22, 2007 The primary concern of any police officer is safety, his own safety and the safety of the public. If the officer feels that the safety of the public is in jeopardy, he has full authority to take any action to make sure public safety is concerned. If that involves ejecting protesters then so be it. He also has to defend his actions and it may not hold up in court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figleaf Posted March 23, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2007 The primary concern of any police officer is safety, his own safety and the safety of the public. If the officer feels that the safety of the public is in jeopardy, he has full authority to take any action to make sure public safety is concerned. Well look, that's not even remotely correct. It's almost completely inaccurate. The set of facts barely intersects with your above statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.