Praise the Lord for Fred Phelps and Nadya Suleman

Every once in a while someone comes along who makes us see ourselves in a new way. Through their behavior, they hold up a mirror to our own impulses. For many of us, Barack Obama, through his words and actions, calls to the surface yearnings and energy we thought had died. On the other hand, we watch Fred "God hates Fags" Phelps or Nadya Suleman and think, ooh, that's nasty.

What do they have in common with Barack Obama?!

Here's what: they push us up against some of our deepest values and strongest feelings. They ask us what we stand for and what we're going to do about it.

If we're honest, the revulsion we feel toward Phelps and Suleman is partly because they confront us with our own darkness. Ordinary Evangelicals - decent loving people who are bound to homophobia by bibliolatry -- cringe at the horrid, hateful signs that Phelps waves in the name of their God. And for some, a wonderful thing happens. Sanctified alienation from gays gets overwhelmed by alienation from gay-haters. Love wins out.

For many people, a Phelps encounter offers a first visceral experience of what it's like to be on the receiving end of such loathing. In the same way that Hollywood takes sex and violence over the top so that we can get those adrenaline surges from the comfort of our couches, Phelps purifies and refines homophobia into such a vile spew that, even across our laptops and televisions, we can't help but feel it in our own bodies.

It is the intensity of Phelps that gives him the power to call us out of our armchairs. This week -- in an incident that rippled across the country -- Kansas high school students rallied around their gay friends, holding signs of affirmation and love. What's the matter with Kansas? Maybe not so much as some people think.

Suleman's biomedical exploits also have rippled across the country. She hit a nerve we didn't know we had. Lurid curiosity, revulsion, indignation, child-empathy, nurturance and outrage -- these are powerful emotions, and they've raised powerful questions about right and wrong. How many is too many? Who is responsible? What do those children -- with their likely disabilities -- deserve in terms of care? What do all children deserve in terms of care? Who decides?

We may grieve the harm caused by people who blunder through life at extremes. But we should also thank them. Because most of the harm done in the world isn't done by Phelps's or Sulemans. It's done by people like you and me with our ordinary fears and blind spots and pursuit of what we want. And they help us change.

From the dedication page of Lon Po Po, A Red Riding Hood Story by Ed Young: "To all the wolves of the world for lending their good name as a tangible symbol for our darkness."

Comments

[anitra larae]

Excellent...but I think the very nice quotation at the end actually gives a bad name to wolves! Some can never be satisfied!

[Valerie Tarico - Huffpost Blogger]

But you are right, Anitra. It's not parallel, and it's not fair to the wolves. I should have left it off.

[Portlyric]

Isn't thanking Phelps a little like thanking Hitler for raising our awareness of genocide? On the other hand, I will admit that Suleman's actions have forced me to think about child exploitation in an entirely new way. Cleary we cannot allow mentally unstable, delusional and celebrity seeking individuals to form joint ventures with greedy, unscrupulous doctors and the media to mass produce children for exploitation. This would set a chilling precedent and yes, certainly my revulsion is extreme but did I really need a narcissistic, probably sociopathic womb to put 14 children at extreme risk for me to know how utterly unacceptable child exploitation and neglect is? Rather than thanking the extremes out there with all the irrepairable damage they do maybe we should honor our own capacity for empathy and compassion.

[AntiSocialite]

I love this article, you obviously see logic, take a rational view of the world and are a true believer of free speech. It is a refreshing new angle to what I have been saying for a long time, that freedom of speech must be absolute. Too many in today's world, especially in the liberal (and even more so in the GLBT) blogosphere would seek to limit Phelps' freedom of speech. They refuse to see the double standard that taking away this man's civil rights on the premise that he is 'hindering' their civil rights brings. I have dug my heels in on many a discussion right here on Huffington's comment boards calling for 'hate speech' legislation or some such nonsense. I agree more with Evelyn Beatrice Hall, writing under the pseudonym S.G. Tallentyre, summed up Voltaire's belief's as "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Clearly, you have shown the benefits that exposure to this kind of crass world view can make some people reexamine their own beliefs, no matter how deeply held. My personal best description of this was in a former post when I said:

"The marketplace of ideas needs to be an equal opportunity employer so that good ideas are brought to the forefront while bad ideas are exposed for their shortcomings, either by the intuition of the consumers or by some kind of other rebuttal."

Bravo Valerie

Peace

[marignymitch]

Kindly specify how many beseiged members of the gay community are 'especially' opposed to Phelps' (or anyone's) civil liberties. And also kindly specify how many is too many. Thanks

After you join the reality-based community and drop your gross uniformed generalities you may rejoin the forum.

[AntiSocialite]

Speaking of 'gross uniformed(sic) generalities,' care to explain why you are putting words in my mouth? I believe that I said GLBT BLOGOSPHERE, not gay community, and if you have participated in enough discussions pertaining to this topic you might know that some people tend to take offense to minutia, fly off the deep end and generally endorse heavy-handed countermeasures that amount to an infringement of the other parties civil rights. As for how many is too many? One, I consider it my job to speak for all of our civil rights and if even one person is ignorant there is still work to be done. By the way, the next time you want specifics I'd suggest you check my previous comments for some evidence, I'm not your mommy, there is a link to my profile right in front of your face, use it.

I also find your last sentence to be mildly ironic, the very fact that you imply that I cannot 'rejoin' until my line of thought is part of what you deem 'the reality-based community,' show much about your own openness to new ideas. Apparently thinking out of the box is just a catchphrase to you. Please try and comment on something relating to my main point next time rather than obfuscating it.

Peace

[alaskankid]

"How many is too many?" is the correct question to ask.

Her 14 children will reproduce to eventually become an additional 2.1 million people, on an already overcrowded planet, a thousand years from now, assuming normal natality.

If just one messed up woman can have that much impact on future world population, we REALLY need to think more about the expanding human population and what it means for the future.

[BilCon]

The question is not "How many is too many?," It is "How Many can you care for?"

The planet is not overcrowded, just cities.

[indy100]

Actually the question is how many is too many; and it involves how many can you care for. Caring for means, physically, mentally, emotionally and financially. It means handling multiple crying infants or toddlers at the same time. It means lunches for eight, or fourteen, or whatever. It means PTA conferences for however many we're talking about. It means the type of world you leave to those same children.

If you think the planet is not "overcrowded" I suggest a trip to Japan, China or India. Maybe your little corner of the planet isn't crowded, yet. Rest assurred it will be.

[violettefemme]

I bet half her kids won't even be capable of reproducing. 3 of her first 6 are on state disability already, as very small children.

The octos will have their share of medical issues as well, lifelong.

I feel less an urgency about her children reproducing than about what she has taken away from many others with her bizarre behavior.

She is a taker, and she is now taking for 15 people. People like her can never have enough of what someone else has earned. Just ask her own mother.

Poor 14 kids, nothing is their fault and I can't even imagine the future for them all.

[MJinCanada]

I'm glad to hear about the kids in Kansas supporting their friends.

I hope our young people will continue to rank people over dogma.

[stillwater711]

All churches have gone apostate " blinded "Noway would I approve of this act !
It's Unrighteous - Period!

[grannyma]

Are you a member of the Westboro Babtist Church?