Phelps Verdict

[angellous_evangellous]

Then they're in no way Calvinists.

Yeah, they believe in salvation by grace through faith. So do their theological opponents within evangelical Christianity. The method of God's application of faith is simply applied in extreme terms of predestination and personal choice.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

Ah, here's what I was looking for, from N.Y. Time v. Sullivan?

We may dispose at the outset of ... the proposition relied on by the State Supreme Court -- that "The Fourteenth Amendment is directed against State action and not private action." That proposition has no application to this case. Although this is a civil lawsuit between private parties, the Alabama courts have applied a state rule of law which petitioners claim to impose invalid restrictions on their constitutional freedoms of speech and press. It matters not that that law has been applied in a civil action and that it is common law only, though supplemented by statute. The test is not the form in which state power has been applied but, whatever the form, whether such power has in fact been exercised.

 

[fantome profane]

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.

Of course they might make that argument, and perhaps they did (or their lawyer did on their behalf). But I think they would have a very difficult time convincing any sane judge of the truth of that argument. I certainly don’t believe it. This position may be consistent with mainstream Christian theology (whatever that is), but as you have pointed out it is not consistent with theology of the “Westboro Baptist Church”. Nor is it consistent with their actions. Very rarely does the Phelps gang talk about people being “saved”, all they seem to focus on is God hating people and people being dammed. Which brings us to Seyorni’s 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?

It seems to me that their point is malice. They hate so much and the wish to share their hate with the world. And in return of course they are hated. Hate like this can be as addictive as any drug, the hate itself becomes the point. It justifies everything they do, it justifies their existence. They clearly derive an intense emotional satisfaction from being hated.

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.

Unfortunately the hate laws in Canada have an exemption for religion, which makes them completely pointless. I can’t understand why some people feel that religion either needs or should have a greater right to hate than the general public.

I have found that although most American Christians hate him, their theology is actually pretty close to his.

:run:

 

[Autodidact]

Well, on their website, their pickets are listed under the heading "Love Crusades." No, I'm not kidding.

 

[Valjean]

Reminds me of the old Vietnam adage: "We've got to destroy them in order to save them."

 

[Random]

Reminds me of the old Vietnam adage: "We've got to destroy them in order to save them."

Riiight, Let GOD sort'em out.

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

Ah, here's what I was looking for, from N.Y. Time v. Sullivan?

Hmm, well color me confused. That was not a full case cite, so I cannot look up the facts and holding in Time V. Sullivan, but again, those names are both private citizen names, again indicating a civil case. Criminal cases, or any case in which the government is applying force against a citizen would be entitled, State of Idaho (for example) v. Jones, or U.S. vs. Smith.

My original point still stands as far as I can see. Phelps case is purely a civil matter. Money judgments only, no criminal charges, therefore not a situation where we need to worry about the state enforcing ANY laws. Civil torts, not criminal infractions, very big distinction.

B.

 

[Autodidact]

Hmm, well color me confused. That was not a full case cite, so I cannot look up the facts and holding in Time V. Sullivan, but again, those names are both private citizen names, again indicating a civil case. Criminal cases, or any case in which the government is applying force against a citizen would be entitled, State of Idaho (for example) v. Jones, or U.S. vs. Smith.

My original point still stands as far as I can see. Phelps case is purely a civil matter. Money judgments only, no criminal charges, therefore not a situation where we need to worry about the state enforcing ANY laws. Civil torts, not criminal infractions, very big distinction.

B.

You said:

This was a civil action. It was not the government restricting anything, or involved in any way. Private suit between private citizens, not government restriction of free speech.

I cited N.Y. Times and others--and provided a link to the full case of each--to show that a private suit between private citizens does ential government restriction of free speech, or, as the court says,

Although this is a civil lawsuit between private parties, the Alabama courts have applied a state rule of law ... It matters not that that law has been applied in a civil action...The test is not the form in which state power has been applied but, whatever the form, whether such power has in fact been exercised.

That is, whether it is a civil or criminal case is irrelevant to the free speech issue.

 

[SFT26]

Phelps and his church take an $11 million hit. Was justice served?

It's about time someone stood up to that religious bully. If more people stood up to cowards like Phelps, we could probably do away with organized religion. Every bully who you accept the challenge of will back off.