"You can't preach the Bible without preaching the hatred of God." - Pastor Fred Phelps
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision to hear Snyder v. Phelps, a case dealing with anti-gay protests at the funerals of American soldiers, is stirring up debate over whether the privacy rights of grieving families trumps the free speech rights of demonstrators.
The case arose after members of the anti-gay Westboro Baptist Church picketed the Maryland funeral of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who was killed in combat in Iraq on March 3, 2006. As part of their protests, church members held up signs during Snyder's funeral which stated, among other things, "God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11," "Fag Troops," "Priests Rape Boys," and "Thank God for Dead Soldiers."
Understandably grief-stricken and outraged over Westboro's theatrics, Snyder's father, Albert, filed suit against Westboro Baptist Church and was awarded more than $10 million in damages. That amount was later thrown out by a federal appeals court, which ruled that Westboro's signs could not reasonably be understood to be referring directly to Snyder and his son, who was not gay. As distasteful as Phelps' rhetoric might be, stated the court, it constituted protected speech that focused on issues of national debate.
Distasteful is a mild description of Westboro's anti-gay protests. For example, during staged protests over Memorial Day weekend at Arlington National Cemetery, members of Phelps' group sing "God Hates America" to the tune of "God Bless America" and hold signs that read "God is America's terror," "Thank God for dead soldiers" and "You're going to hell."
Phelps and his Westboro congregants have become old pros at staging these funeral protests. In fact, since 1991 (according to its website), Westboro's members have carried out 42,840 demonstrations at homosexual parades and other events, including more than 200 military funerals of troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Insisting that God is killing American soldiers in order to punish America for its openness to homosexuality, church members have proclaimed, "You turned the country over to fags, these soldiers are coming home in body bags."
As morally repugnant and unpatriotic as Westboro's protests might be, they have nonetheless managed to garner a great deal of publicity - something Phelps, who started the Topeka, Kansas-based church in 1955, clearly loves. Consisting mainly of Phelps and his extended family, Westboro Baptist Church became infamous in 1991 for its "God Hates Fags" message, which is also the name of its website. As the website explains, "By the time a person reaches the state of hard core, defiant, unrepentant, homosexual lifestyle, God has washed His hands of that person. God does not hate them because they are homosexuals; they are homosexuals because God hates them."
Yet it wasn't until the controversial death of Mathew Shepard in 1998 that Westboro attained a level of public notoriety. Shepard, a 21-year-old Wyoming college student, was brutally beaten and left for dead, reportedly because he was gay. Westboro members picketed Shepard's funeral and the murder trial of the men who had killed him with signs stating that Shepard was in hell for being gay.
However, Westboro not only condemns those who are openly homosexual but also those who do not speak out against homosexuality. For example, accusing Chief Justice William Rehnquist of not protecting the United States against homosexuality, they picketed his September 2005 funeral with signs reading "Judge in Hell."
In fact, Westboro sees nearly every national disaster and act of human depravity as God punishing America for its stance on "fags" - and they go so far as to thank God for these tragedies. They insist that the Space Shuttle Columbia crashed as a way to punish the U.S., NASA and the astronauts for not using their position to speak out against homosexuality. They offered prayers of thanksgiving after the 9/11 terrorist attacks and even traveled to New York City to protest rescue efforts, mock victims and urge that those who were still alive should be left there to die. They also praised the devastation resulting from the tsunami in Asia and Hurricane Katrina as God's way of punishing those who have let the "fags" take over the world. Most recently, church members protested the District of Columbia's decision to approve gay marriage. Margie Phelps, Fred's daughter, said she is spewing the "righteous, perfect hate of God." Gay marriage, she said, "will be the final straw. This nation will have passed the final line with God and this will be destroyed."
There may be some who see the members of Westboro Baptist Church as representative of Christianity, but they have little to do with true Christianity. As Jesus Christ proclaimed, "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you."
In rejecting Christ's admonitions, Westboro has chosen instead to focus its efforts on spreading hate. Their actions are deplorable, particularly their protests at military funerals. However, whether such tasteless protests are illegal and outside the protection of the First Amendment is another matter altogether--and one that has given rise to a national furor.
Forty-one states have now passed laws limiting demonstrations at funerals. On a national level, federal legislation essentially bars free speech demonstrations within certain distances of cemeteries. This over-reaching law bans "any picketing, any speech, the display of any banner, flag or the distribution of any handbill, pamphlet," etc., at funerals. What this means is that any citizen even engaged in such nondisruptive expression as carrying an American flag while mourning the death of a slain soldier could also be in violation of the law. Moreover, anyone violating this law would face up to a $100,000 fine and up to a year in prison.
Still, it must be remembered that James Madison, who authored the First Amendment, noted that the purpose of the Amendment was to protect the minority against the majority. And as Madison knew very well, the minority is often made up of extremists who have nothing better to do than foster hate through speech - albeit constitutionally protected speech.
Simply put, tolerance toward the speech of people like Phelps shows that freedom still survives in America. Robust free speech - even of the extreme variety - in the open marketplace of ideas is one of the few hopes we have as citizens, and it is something we must protect. As the great French dissident and writer Voltaire once observed, "I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Follow John W. Whitehead on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rutherford_inst
Rev. Patrick S. Cheng, Ph.D.: "Love The Sinner, Hate The Sin" And Other Modern-Day Heresies
Westboro Baptist Church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
but then of course to assume that a blog writer actually reads any of these responses requires the relgious faith... evidence of things unseen or some such
Be that as it may, it's hate-speech, pure and simple. Barely even speech, actually.
I'd say, speak for yourself about what's dangerous to whom, really. Perhaps you haven't had these types frothing in your face. The Phelps people may be all lawyers to get out of punishment for when they cross the line, but others who try it are less 'careful.'
If you substituted the N-word for the F-word where they say 'F's are beasts' there'd be a huge uproar.
Yes, they do show how ugly homophobia really is, but so, I think, does society not *doing* anything about it, much of the time. You don't hear people using less-garish lies and similar hatred to take away people's rights and dignity saying they're *wrong,* either... Rather, they just claim they're quite sensible by comparison.
These people are bat-sh*t crazy.
They can't seem to keep their minds out of the gutter.
The level of ignorance among this group is astounding. It's because of people like the Westboro Baptist church psychos that the US needs to maintain the separation of church and state.
.....You know what they reminded me of? Those crazy people you see in large cities, wandering around muttering to themselves in ways that make other people nervously cross to the other side of the street.
That's how I exercise my freedom of speech when around those types of people, at least: cross to the other side of the street (and doooon't make eye contact!).
It's like gun control...in the wrong hands it can kill, in the right hands it can save lives....but we still regulate guns to try to make sure they don't fall in the wrong hands...these people are the reason religious speech should be regulated!!
Just to clarify the facts, the jury awarded a total of $10.9 million. The trial court reduced the award to $5 million. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the judgement, not just the amount. Two of the judges reversed based on the First Amendment. The third judge concurred in the reversal, but did not reach the constitutional question because he found "Snyder failed to prove at trial sufficient evidence to support the jury verdict on any of his tort claims".
Neither the Supreme Court nor this Court has specifically addressed the question of whether the constitutional protections afforded to statements not provably false should apply with equal force to both media and nonmedia defendants. The Second and Eighth Circuits, however, have rejected any media/nonmedia distinction. Like those two circuits, we believe that the First Amendment protects nonmedia speech on matters of public concern that does not contain provably false factual assertions. Any effort to justify a media/nonmedia distinction rests on unstable ground, given the difficulty of defining with precision who belongs to the "media." And, more importantly, the Supreme Court has concluded that the "inherent worth of speech . . . does not depend upon the identity of its source, whether corporation, association, union, or individual." Thus, for our purposes, the status of the Defendants as media or nonmedia is immaterial. [citations omitted]
I wonder how Westboro rationalizes "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" into their actions?
In addition, they appear to be having an extremely difficult time finding a good spot in the world to live; apparently god hates even the places that hate the gays as much as they do, too. It makes no sense, I know. But I sense they aren't interested in things that make sense ("sense" as defined by people who regularly dwell in reality).
No love, no sense, no Jews, no gays. Juuust crazy. 24/7. That pretty much sums up the Westboro people.
The problem with hate speech is that it can be judged as incitement of violence.
The judgement that needs to be made is whether an act of violence is a likely consequence.
I am a soldier, a veteran, the favorite nephew of a lesbian, and a close friend of several homosexuals. If anyone i love died and the hateful bastards from Phelps' cult protested them, I would be irate. But my anger would be based on my relationship to the deceased, not on my principals.
Voltaire is one of my heroes, and the quote at the end of this piece is my favorite quote from him. Our faith in free expression is not proven by the small disagreements we have. It's proven when we allow the views of those we find repulsive. When we allow Fred Phelps to defend at the top of his lungs that which I would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of mine. Otherwise what is the point of the sacrifice of millions of servicemembers? What was the point of declaring our independence from King George? When you shut up a Fred Phelps, you also shut up a Martin Luther King. I will happily suffer the one, to hear the other. The good of our union demands it.
That said, I'm not gonna feel bad for him when someone breaks his nose.
This case does not seem to justify action.
On the other hand - it is perfectly clear that some people openly engage in conspiracy to commit murder or other violence while using language which might be construed by some to be innocent but is clearly inderstood by others as instruction or incitement of violence. Those actions should be investigated and likely prosecuted.
Let a jury decide the difficult cases.
There is a line that some would skate between contracting and conspiring for murder and just speaking about stuff.
...all evidence to the contrary.
"You can't preach the Bible without preaching the hatred of God." - Pastor Fred Phelps"
Honestly, I never thought I'd agree with anything he said, but I do agree with that one. Xians like to pretend that their myth does not include the inconvenient absurdity that Jesus and Jehovah are the same guy. Jehovah is a hater.
"Their actions are deplorable, particularly their protests at military funerals."
There's nothing "particularly" deplorable about that. Their protests are always vile and it's offensive to suggest that it's less vile when they picket a gay person's funeral.
"Simply put, tolerance toward the speech of people like Phelps shows that freedom still survives in America."
Yes, it does. It also exposes the homophobia that xianity refuses to dispose of.
This bible thing is a contrived and contradicting book of nonsense... What Phelps preaches, is in there. Just because some other group that call themselves "christians" prefer the warm and cuddly parts does not negate Phelps interpretation.
One of my favorite quotes - "But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer [Jesus] of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State." Thomas Jefferson
The word most often used to describe the character of God in the OT is "chesed" which translates to steadfast, tender kindness/love.
This guy is an idiot who enjoys power and attention. Sadly, "freedom of speech" gives him the right to cause people pain in their time of great suffering.
I do wonder if freedom of speech applies when one is only harassing strangers and intruding on private ceremonies? Like "Bong Hits For Jesus" the speech only exists to generate a reaction, not to make a point.
I'm trying to erase the brainwashing as hard as I can.
"The word most often used to describe the character of God in the OT is "chesed" which translates to steadfast, tender kindness/love."
What? You think that a bootlicker's opinion of his god is proof of something? Actions speak louder than words.