-
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!
This disgusts me
- Thread starter Klaufi_Wodensson
- Start date
You'd have a point if a majority of Christians followed suite. But that does not appear to be the case.
i really dont understand what you mean, specifically. could you elaborate a little more on your own issue with it?
Skwim
Veteran Member
You mean the spirit always moves most Christians the same way?
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
Permitting completely unrestricted free speech would be more damaging to that freedom than agreeing some careful limitations.
Even in the US, with personal freedom as such a major factor, they have restrictions on free speech (e.g. slander, perjury, obscenity laws) so it isn't the right approach to this issue to simply say "It's free speech so we should never stop them".
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Someone better turn the tables and protest at their funerals whenever one of them die.
dust1n
Zindīq
Hold a sign: "See, I told you nothing happened."
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
I do not understand nor would I defend Free speech over all other rights and responsibilities.
I find it sickmaking that such abusive behaviour can ever be supported in law.
I find it sickmaking that such abusive behaviour can ever be supported in law.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Well if you actually think about it, it's important to defend the rights and liberties of others even when we disagree with them, because if other people's freedom can be threatened, ours can too.
perhaps because we might have a few historical examples of what happens when the words of the people are controlled. there really are very few rights that haven't been obtained as a result of free speech. so it's sorta important.
i agree that the behavior is abusive.
but it's not supported by law. it's simply not within the confines of the law to stop this behavior. which means that in order to stop the behavior, we need to find a different means.
on a documentary about fred phelps and his church there was a story about a woman who's husband died in iraq and found out that they would be protesting at the funeral. a local veterans biker club caught wind of it, and with permission from the widow, surrounded the protesters with their bikes and made so much engine-noise that you couldn't hear them shouting and singing. so the funeral went on with at least a slightly more peaceful soundtrack.
we have to be more clever with how we handle hate mongers than to just run to the government to save us every time.
The Westboro baptist church picket soldiers funerals with things like "God Hates ****" and other anti-gay, anti-America and anti-whoever the soldier was stuff. Kinda glad these guys are on the UK Least wanted list and barred from the country.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
This is where we differ as does most of Europe.
It is certainly correct to defend rights and liberties. But no one has the right and liberty to defame of abuse.
It is only in the USA that the law sees it that way. Here laws and rights are seen as conditional, in that a person never has the right to deny other people corresponding rights.
In this case they are using a right of free speech to attack peoples right not be defamed or verbally abused. Thepeople causing personal harm should be prevented by law from doing so.
Duties are every bit as important as rights. It is called civilisation
OK....this'll git me in trouble. I take pleasure in these vile protests. These cretins so few, freely do what they
do yet the gov't can't still them & funeral goers don't kill them, that bespeaks a pretty tolerant & civil society.
do yet the gov't can't still them & funeral goers don't kill them, that bespeaks a pretty tolerant & civil society.
Last edited:
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
No It shows a one sided law.
TheKnight
Guardian of Life
This isn't as much a free-speech issue as it is freedom to assemble. They have a right to free speech, however their right to peaceably assemble only constitutionally applies when it comes to petitioning the government. Holding up demeaning and insulting signs at a familial funeral for a member of the military is not petitioning the government and thus should not be allowed.
Klaufi_Wodensson
Vinlandic Warrior
Well firs of all I do believe that we should protect free speech, so I don't want it to be banned or anything.
My problem is that people would go to a Soldier's funeral and have signs like they did. A person who died to keep them safe, and they are being hateful towards this person and his family. You'd think that people aren't that bad. This just fills me with so much hate towards these people. It's sickening