Westboro Baptist Church

[McBell]

That's like saying "We're not talking about music; we're talking about rap." The one is a form of the other.

I disagree.
It is more like saying "we are not talking about rap, we are talking about Snoop Dogs music."

I, myself, would rule that a true "Christian fundamentalist" would be focused on someone who actually focused on ALL the fundamentals of their Christ, including caring for the poor.

Westboro Baptist are Christian pseudo-fundamentalists. The video, however, is offensive to those who belong in the former category as well.

I disagree.
Westboro Baptist are not "pseudo" fundamentalists.
They are fanatical fundamentalists.

 

[MoonWater]

I, myself, would rule that a true "Christian fundamentalist" would be focused on someone who actually focused on ALL the fundamentals of their Christ, including caring for the poor.

Westboro Baptist are Christian pseudo-fundamentalists. The video, however, is offensive to those who belong in the former category as well.

I'm sorry if you found it offensive. I didn't post it to be an insult. I personally found it amusing but I do see your point. The terms "fundamentalist" and "extremist"(I would consider the westboro baptist church "extremist") are used interchangeably so regularly that I assumed them to be pretty much the same thing. But the definition you give brings up a very important distinction that should be made between people who simply strive to follow all of Christ's teachings to the letter, and those who twist his teachings to serve their own bigoted and biased agendas.

Though the point of the video WAS to be a jab at people like members of the westboro baptist church(and maybe even others who aren't QUITE that extreme) I did not bring it up as a jab at anyone in the "fundamentalist" category as YOU have defined it here. I have a great deal of love and respect for Christianity but absolutely no respect for those who use it as a weapon. I feel the video is meant to be a jab at people you use christianity as a weapon not at those who simply follow it more strictly than others. My apologies for the insult, the jab was certainly not directed at you or others who are as you describe fundamentalists to be.... at least I did not intend it to be.:sorry1:

 

[lilithu]

Don't kid yourself, its always conditional based on what you're saying, hence my last sentence.

Out of curiosity, can you point to any basis upon which you claim to know more about how the U.S. constitution works (both in theory and in practice) than I do?

It happens all the time, and its completely legal; in fact, it happens often enough that it doesn't even make the news most of the time. But, unlike in Europe, the vast majority of American Muslims are moderates, unlike in Europe and other western countries, where a good portion (20-30%) tend to be radical, while I'd say that less than 5% of American Muslims are radical, and I doubt it's that high. Islam is, despite all the Islamophobic language coming out of the Republican Party and the government, extremely well tolerated in the United States.

Well, I can tell you stories of intolerance against Muslisms in the U.S., but in general I agree with you. I do wonder tho, are Muslims in the U.S. on average more moderate because they are on average more tolerated or are they more tolerated because they are more moderate? (I tend to think the former.)

 

[darkendless]

Out of curiosity, can you point to any basis upon which you claim to know more about how the U.S. constitution works (both in theory and in practice) than I do?

It just seems to be how things work these days. Legally you can say whatever you want, but socially there are things you just shouldn't say. In major Christian communities the Westboro message wouldn't be too bad, but say if they lived in a Gay community, then in that community it would be socially unacceptable. I don't pretend to know much about your constitution, im thankful in many ways im 12000km away from the USA.

 

[Apex]

In major Christian communities the Westboro message wouldn't be too bad

You have no idea how wrong you are. You do realize that people like the Westboro church are a minority? Right?

 

[lilithu]

It just seems to be how things work these days. Legally you can say whatever you want, but socially there are things you just shouldn't say. In major Christian communities the Westboro message wouldn't be too bad, but say if they lived in a Gay community, then in that community it would be socially unacceptable. I don't pretend to know much about your constitution, im thankful in many ways im 12000km away from the USA.

I'll be the first to admit that there aren't many ways in which the U.S. consistently lives up to its ideals. However, freedom of speech is one area where we have.

 

[darkendless]

I'll be the first to admit that there aren't many ways in which the U.S. consistently lives up to its ideals. However, freedom of speech is one area where we have.

Also keeping religion out of public schools. I wasn't attacking the constitution before i was merely saying given the area in which these people live, it is probably more acceptable to preach what they do than in an area without a large number of Christians.

 

[Luminous]

:biglaugh:: People like this make me feel better. Odd right?

11! No wonder religions 'spread'.

Mrs. Phelps loves gays more than you, she's just trying to help them because they are Dooming America and God Hates them.

Dear Mrs. Phelps,
Thank God you're gonna die.
With lots of love,
Luminous

 

[Elessar]

Also keeping religion out of public schools. I wasn't attacking the constitution before i was merely saying given the area in which these people live, it is probably more acceptable to preach what they do than in an area without a large number of Christians.

No, not at all. No major, heck, no SIGNIFICANT Christian denomination has ever voiced any support WHATSOEVER for the Westboro Baptist Church. In fact, they protest at churches who are "going to hell" for their beliefs. For example, for refusing to "hate faggots" (their words, not mine), but rather loving them and allowing them into the church, even those conservative churches who say they are sinners going to hell. I know of large Christian groups which have gone to protest outside their church, and conservative Christians - anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, the works - who have tried to block out their protests, the same way those cyclists do.

The reason they are allowed to say what they want is because our First Amendment allows it, and that amendment is enforced. We have neo-Nazis in the United States - unlike in most countries, Nazism is legal here. Do you think its because most Americans agree with their messsage? NO! It's because we hold freedom of speech and conscience sacrosanct. The Nazis are freely allowed to rally, to speak about the superiority of their race, etc. - as long as they don't directly advocate a specific capital crime which leads to that crime's committance.

Nazis have even marched through places with HUGE numbers of Jews and African Americans, and are protected, because it is legal for them to do so. Of course, the countermarches and protests of the rallies are often 3-4 times the size of the marches and rallies themselves. There was a major rally held in Valley Forge (a place of much historical significance, just outside Philadelphia), jointly by the Nazi Party and the Ku Klux Klan, just a few years ago. There were more than ten times as many protesters as ralliers.

There is no such thing as "unacceptable" speech in the United States, with the exceptions I mentioned previously - to do something which could lead to mortal danger, i.e., "Crying 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater", or to directly advocate a major infraction against the laws of the United States, which directly leads to that major infraction's occurrence. Heck, a Nazi can openly say "The Jews should all die!" without being prosecuted, UNLESS his saying such led someone to kill a Jew. Hate speech is not a crime (though, people can sue for libel and slander, and the Anti-Defamation League (run by Jews and primarily focused against Jews' enemies, but also against ALL defamation, notably defending Muslims, African Americans, Hispanics, Catholics and so on) does so often) - only actions relating from that hate speech are. And it is extremely difficult to prove in a court of law that the hate speaker is responsible for someone else's actions.

So, except those two very specific exceptions, ALL speech is legal and protected in the United States.

 

[darkendless]

Exactly they're all protected, they can say what they want. But should they say it, thats the question? Is it in the best interests of the public? No, i dont think theres a place in the 1st world for racial discrimination, we should have got over that 100 years ago. Should Neo-Nazis be allowed to openly discriminate against Jews and Blacks? Should Christians be allowed to discriminate publicly against Gays?
Theres no such thing as unacceptable in a legal sense, but socially, it would not be a good idea to sit down at a dinner table of multiple races and religions and start talking about how one should be paid for every african american they shoot.
Over here being a public nuesance means you can be fined/imprisoned, police in this country would exercise their power to the full against Westboro.

 

[Elessar]

Exactly they're all protected, they can say what they want. But should they say it, thats the question? Is it in the best interests of the public? No, i dont think theres a place in the 1st world for racial discrimination, we should have got over that 100 years ago. Should Neo-Nazis be allowed to openly discriminate against Jews and Blacks? Should Christians be allowed to discriminate publicly against Gays?
Theres no such thing as unacceptable in a legal sense, but socially, it would not be a good idea to sit down at a dinner table of multiple races and religions and start talking about how one should be paid for every african american they shoot.
Over here being a public nuesance means you can be fined/imprisoned, police in this country would exercise their power to the full against Westboro.

And, as I've said again and again, the police HAVE no power against Westboro unless they break a specific law. Society has no say over what they can say.

 

[frg001]

What a silly bunch. But to me it seems like they just take the bible a bit too seriously. ...And were born a thousand or so years too late.
I wouldn't call them evil, just fanatical. It's the dogma behind such fundamentalism that is evil, not the minds taken in and destroyed by it.

Nothing that a cruise missile couldn't sort out... (joke)

 

[lilithu]

Exactly they're all protected, they can say what they want. But should they say it, thats the question? Is it in the best interests of the public?

Who is to decide what is in the best interests of the public? You have an example here where the decision might seem easy, but as soon as you start banning people's free-speech for the "best interests of the public" you're gonna run into cases that are not so easy to decide.

Should Neo-Nazis be allowed to openly discriminate against Jews and Blacks? Should Christians be allowed to discriminate publicly against Gays?

Here in the U.S., we make a distinction between speech and action. A Neo-Nazi or anyone else is free to say how they feel about anyone, without fear of prosecution. They are stating what they believe to be right. Their freedom of conscience is protected. But they are not allowed to discriminate against anyone based on race, as that would violate the rights of the person(s) being discriminated against. You can't not hire someone or not rent to someone, etc. based on race or religion. At the moment, BGLT folks are not protected in this way... and they should be.

Speech and action. You do not have the right to never be offended, to never get your feelings hurt. But you do have the right to be able to go to school, get a job, make a home, etc without discrimination.

Personally, that makes a lot more sense to me than banning people's ability to speak their minds.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I wouldn't call them evil, just fanatical. It's the dogma behind such fundamentalism that is evil, not the minds taken in and destroyed by it.

I disagree, surprise surprise . It's not the dogma but the fundamentalism itself that is evil. Any religion can be usurped by fantatic fundamentalists who, IMHO, are the evil side of that religion.

 

[Apex]

I wouldn't call them evil, just fanatical. It's the dogma behind such fundamentalism that is evil, not the minds taken in and destroyed by it.

That is like saying the alcohol is responsible for making a person an alcoholic or a gun is responsible for someone killing another person.

 

[Luminous]

That is like saying the alcohol is responsible for making a person an alcoholic or a gun is responsible for someone killing another person.

We sure act like it. Banning the tools. though banning the users hasn't worked either.

 

[Apex]

We sure act like it. Banning the tools. though banning the users hasn't worked either.

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers. (e.g. Politicians)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hey... the other day I heard that the Westboro Baptist Church had announced that they were going to picket a high school play north of me. I was trying to figure out why I hadn't heard anything them protesting in my neck of the woods, but then I found out why I hadn't: they didn't show... though apparently the Phelpses are claiming they did.

 

[frg001]

I disagree, surprise surprise . It's not the dogma but the fundamentalism itself that is evil. Any religion can be usurped by fantatic fundamentalists who, IMHO, are the evil side of that religion.

Not at all. If you take parts of the bible literally, then they are not saying anything particularly outrageous. They take it literally, and believe that it is their duty to warn others that they are going to hell for their lifestyle. I can bet they don't eat shellfish either.

That is like saying the alcohol is responsible for making a person an alcoholic

As analogies go that's like comparing the best selling cook book, with a glass of sherry.

or a gun is responsible for someone killing another person.

Or maybe its instruction book? But I have never heard of a child being killed when discovering his dads bible. A gun has one purpose only...to kill things.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Not at all. If you take parts of the bible literally, then they are not saying anything particularly outrageous. They take it literally, and believe that it is their duty to warn others that they are going to hell for their lifestyle. I can bet they don't eat shellfish either.

You've illustrated my point very nicely. It is the fundamentalism, taking the bible literally in your example, that is evil. The religion itself is neither good or evil but a blend of both. Only the people can be good or evil and that comes with how they choose to use their religion.