• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Phelps Verdict

MdmSzdWhtGuy

Well-Known Member
No, I believe you're mistaken. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974), Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974).

How does a 1974 case show I am mistaken about the fact that the Phelps (2007) case was a civil, and not a criminal matter? Oh and when I click on those cites above, it just goes to a Wiki page informing me in general terms about case cites, not to that case in particular. Maybe let me know what the holding was, and I will know how I was mistaken.

B.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Gertz v. Welch, [FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]t[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]he Court ruled that in the absence of a showing of actual malice[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1], private plaintiffs are limited by the First Amendment--[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]at least with respect to comments about a matter of public concern--[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1] to recovery only for actual damages, and not for punitive or presumed damages.

[/SIZE][/FONT]
Freedom of the Press — Whether a private person has to show that a defamation defendant acted with actual malice or simply fault in order to recover damages.
The court ruled 5-4 that a private person does not have to show actual malice in order to recover damages for libel even if the defamatory comments discuss a public issue.
N.Y. Times v. Sullivan,
Whether the First Amendment limits a state's power to award libel damages brought by a public official against critics of the official's public duties.
The Court ruled that the First and Fourteenth Amendments require a public official suing for defamation to prove that the allegedly defamatory comments were made with 'actual malice — that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
How does a 1974 case show I am mistaken about the fact that the Phelps (2007) case was a civil, and not a criminal matter? Oh and when I click on those cites above, it just goes to a Wiki page informing me in general terms about case cites, not to that case in particular. Maybe let me know what the holding was, and I will know how I was mistaken.

B.

Oh no, it was civil. My point is that the first amendment can apply in a civil context, because the government (court) can impose a judgment for damages, with the authority and power of the government to enforce it.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
You highlighted the wrong part.
Gertz v. Welch, [FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]t[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]he Court ruled that in the absence of a showing of actual malice[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1], private plaintiffs are limited by the First Amendment--[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]at least with respect to comments about a matter of public concern--[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1] to recovery only for actual damages, and not for punitive or presumed damages.[/SIZE][/FONT]
The absence of malice defense is obviously unavailable to the Phelps people. Malice is their mission statement. Their actions and even their own word clearly show they intended to cause distress. Actual malice can be clearly shown.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
fantôme profane;990130 said:
You highlighted the wrong part.
The absence of malice defense is obviously unavailable to the Phelps people. Malice is their mission statement. Their actions and even their own word clearly show they intended to cause distress. Actual malice can be clearly shown.

Very interesting point. That gets into freedom of religion, and in particular the belief of certain adherents (mostly Christian) that their religion includes the freedom to present their views to others, usually in the form of proselytizing. Many Christians, including those in the military, consider this to be part of their religious freedom, while others, such as Mikey Weinstein and myself, consider it to be an infringement on other people's religious freedoms, including the right to be free from religion. Anyway, to get back to Phelps et al. they would assert, I believe, their religious duty to preach to sinners about their sin. Thus it is not only a freedom of speech case but freedom of religion, which makes it interesting.

They might argue that they were exhibiting not malice, but love for their audience, whom they were trying to save from eternal condemnation. That would be consistent with mainstream Christian theology.

In fact although Phelps is a psycho, and takes it to an extreme, his theology is not marginal. It's regular old Calvinist Christian doctrine. And boy, does he know his scripture. I have found that although most American Christians hate him, their theology is actually pretty close to his. They agree (many of them, not all) that God demonstrates punishment as well as concern, that He is angry as well as loving, that homosexuality is a sin. In fact, the most radical thing about Phelps' theology is not his condemnation of homosexuality, which is widespread, but his Calvinism, which is a minority view.

Getting back to the hate speech laws in Europe, there is a minister in some Scandinavian country--Sweden?--who went to jail because his sermons condemning homosexuality were considered hate speech.

Anyway, since no one involved here was a public person (other than maybe Phelps) and it's not a defamation case, they wouldn't even have to prove malice, under Gertz v. Welch.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
In fact although Phelps is a psycho, and takes it to an extreme, his theology is not marginal. It's regular old Calvinist Christian doctrine. And boy, does he know his scripture. I have found that although most American Christians hate him, their theology is actually pretty close to his. They agree (many of them, not all) that God demonstrates punishment as well as concern, that He is angry as well as loving, that homosexuality is a sin. In fact, the most radical thing about Phelps' theology is not his condemnation of homosexuality, which is widespread, but his Calvinism, which is a minority view.

Wow that's unfortunate. I have never heard of any Christian church that is remotely close to Phelps.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Wow that's unfortunate. I have never heard of any Christian church that is remotely close to Phelps.

Sure, it's the methods people hate. People right here on religious forums espouse very similar views, using different terms:
Homosexuality is a sin/abomination.
God is both loving and angry, and it is right and just that He should be so. God condemns and punishes all sin, including homosexuality.
Etc.

As I say the controversial part is the Calvinism, the idea of pre-destination and T.U.L.I.P.
It focuses on God’s sovereignty, stating that God is able and willing by virtue of his omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence, to do whatever He desires with His creation. It also maintains that within the Bible are the following teachings: That God, by His sovereign grace predestines people into salvation; that Jesus died only for those predestined; that God regenerates the individual where he is then able and wants to choose God; and that it is impossible for those who are redeemed to lose their salvation.

I think most American Christians are Arminians, and believe that each individual can choose whether to answer the call to grace and be saved.

I think the basic problem originates in God's omniscience and omnipotence, and attempts to solve the problem of a God who knows and sees into the future, and to reconcile this with free will as it regards God's grace and salvation.

Haven't really seen statistics on this, though, and I don't know whether most Arminians have thought consciously about what they believe on these points and why, while it seems like most Calvinists know they're Calvinists.

I believe the Christian Reconstructionist movement would be considered Calvinist.

And I actually don't know why I felt compelled to embark on this essay regarding Calvinism.

Anyway, sorry for the unnecessarily long post, my point was the the gay stuff is not controversial, the methods are, and to some extent the Calvinism. Have you visited God Hates ****? Dang, it says it's getting a temporary facelift. Well, try this. What it will show you is that while you may disagree with his exegesis (if you're a liberal Christian) Pastor Phelps is very, very Biblical. Basically he's an inerrantist and either really does base everything he does on the Bible, or at a minimum can build a good case that is what he's doing.

I really think every modern American Christian should visit God Hates **** and wrestle with the issues that he raises, from a Christian point of view.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Fascinating posts, autodidact. I wasn't aware Phelps was of the Calvinist persuasion. It begs the question: what is he trying to accomplish? If he can effect no change in the final outcome of things, why go to all the effort?

You make a good point about his basic theology. The public objection seems more rooted in his application of Christian teachings than in the theology itself.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
As I say the controversial part is the Calvinism, the idea of pre-destination and T.U.L.I.P.

My impression is that Calvinism is very much alive in Protestant Christianity. The only reason why it's a minority is that Catholics don't wholeheartedly accept it, tipping the balance.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I disagree, angellous. It seems to me that TULIP would grate heavily on the sensibility of most American Christians, were they aware of this theology.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Well, could we ask the Christians here if they are aware of T.U.L.I.P. and whether they agree with it?
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
What's TULIP?
The five points of Calvinism are:

Total depravity

Also called "radical depravity" and "total inability", this point means that every person is corrupt and sinful throughout in all of his or her faculties, including the mind and will. Thus, no one is able to do what is truly good in God's eyes. (This does not mean that every act is as evil as it could be, but rather that every good act is corrupted by sin.) As a result of this corruption, man is enslaved to sin, rebellious and hostile toward God, blind to truth, and unable to save himself or even prepare himself for salvation.

Unconditional election

Election means "choice." God's choice from eternity past, of whom he will bring to himself, is not based on foreseen virtue, merit, or faith in the persons he chooses but rather is unconditionally grounded in his own sovereign decision.

Limited atonement

Also called "particular redemption" or "definite atonement", the doctrine of limited atonement is the teaching that Jesus' atonement was definite and certain in its design and accomplishment. The doctrine is driven by the concept of the sovereignty of God in salvation and the Calvinist understanding of the nature of the atonement: In the Calvinist view, the atonement is viewed as a penal substitution (that is, Jesus was punished in the place of sinners), and since, Calvinists argue, it would be unjust for God to pay the penalty for some people's sins and then still condemn them for those sins, all those whose sins were atoned for must necessarily be saved. Moreover, since in this scheme God knows precisely who the elect are and since only the elect will be saved, there is no requirement that Christ atone for sins in general, only for those of the elect. Calvinists do not believe, however, that the atonement is limited in its value or power (in other words, God could have elected everyone and used it to atone for them all), but rather that the atonement is limited in the sense that it is designed for some and not all.

Irresistible grace

Also known as "effectual grace" or the "effectual call", this doctrine does not hold that every influence of God's Holy Spirit cannot be resisted but that the Holy Spirit is able to overcome all resistance and make his influence irresistible and effective. Thus, when God sovereignly purposes to save someone, that individual certainly will be saved.

Perseverance of the saints

Also called the "preservation of the saints" or "eternal security," the fifth point teaches that, since God is sovereign and his will cannot be frustrated by human will or anything else, those whom God has called into communion with himself will continue in faith until the end. Those who apparently fall away either never had true faith to begin with or will return. This is slightly different from the "once saved, always saved" view prevalent in some evangelical churches in which, despite apostasy or unrepentant and habitual sin, the individual is truly saved if he or she had truly accepted Christ in the past; in traditional Calvinist teaching, apostasy by such a person may be proof that they never were saved. [Wiki]
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
I'm leaving the edges of my knowledge, but I think the core of the dispute has to do with predestination, right?
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The thing is, Calvinists believe that too.

Then they're in no way Calvinists.

I think I understand your point, though. As a child I was forced to attend a Presbyterian Sunday school (until an unfortunate incident involving mantises).
TULIP was never discussed, nor any real theological doctrine, as I recall; just cute bible stories.
I suspect most Christians could not intelligently discuss the doctrines of their purported faiths, anyway.
 
Top