Nathan Phelps on Fred Phelps

Zeepheus
atheist
Zeepheus's picture
Posts: 50
Joined: 2011-08-26
User is offlineOffline
Nathan Phelps on Fred Phelps

Source http://www.kmov.com/news/local/Meet-the-anti-Fred-Phelps-117725654.html

 

KMOV/Mark Schnyder) --- I talked to the son of Pastor Fred Phelps, the founder of the Westboro Baptist Church that "hates gays" and shows up saying so outside soldiers' funerals.

Nate Phelps is the opposite of his father and he wants the world to know it.

Nate is going to be speaking at Clayton High School at 7:30 Thursday night. The public is invited to this free event.

Nate is working on a book on his life. He says his first 18 years were so painful (verbal and physical abuse), he took off on his 18th birthday and never went back home.

Where his father "hates gays," Nate speaks out in support of gay rights.

He says besides the violence in his early life, Nate says his father was "constantly driving home that extreme religious message and insisting that every aspect of our lives conform to what my father thought the bible taught."

Nate says there was no decension in Fred Phelps' home or any original thought. You went along with him or you went away.

I asked Nate if his father is evil. Nate said, "Evil is when people do things that are deliberately hurtful and destructive to others and by that definition, yes, he and his followers are evil."

Nate Phelps says there's no justification for what the Westboro Baptist Church does, but clearly his father and his father's followers (which include some of Nate's siblings) think otherwise.

Nate calls it nonsense and hopes by being the anti-Fred Phelps, he can one day generate the amount of publicity his father has but in a positive way.

Mark Schnyder is a reporter at KMOV-TV. He can be reached at MSchnyder@kmov.com

I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

You see that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb.


Zeepheus
atheist
Zeepheus's picture
Posts: 50
Joined: 2011-08-26
User is offlineOffline
Nathan Phelps interview

I thought I might post this intervew the station did with Nathan as well.

 

http://www.kmov.com/video/featured-videos/Craig-Cheathem-interviews-Westboro-Pastors-son-118013559.html

I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

You see that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb.


Zeepheus
atheist
Zeepheus's picture
Posts: 50
Joined: 2011-08-26
User is offlineOffline
Fred Phelps interview

So here is what Fred Phelps had to say when they interviewed him. This is in the news around here again because a federal court said that a local ordinance that restricts how close a protest can be to the military funeral was struck down.

 

 http://www.kmov.com/video/featured-videos/Pastor-Fred-Phelps-explains-Westboro-Baptist-philosophy-to-Craigh-Cheatham-113482814.html

 

Sorry I don't know haw to actualy put the vid in the the posts so I just provide the links.

I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

You see that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb.


Zeepheus
atheist
Zeepheus's picture
Posts: 50
Joined: 2011-08-26
User is offlineOffline
Westboro baptist to protest Job's Funeral

I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

You see that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10136
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Good luck Nate.

Good luck Nate.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


peterweal
peterweal's picture
Posts: 93
Joined: 2008-06-08
User is offlineOffline
An older interview on

An older interview on Canadian radio:

http://youtu.be/oXysH9LAEG0


peterweal
peterweal's picture
Posts: 93
Joined: 2008-06-08
User is offlineOffline
How the @#&$  do you embed

How the @#&$  do you embed videos on here?


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Zeepheus wrote:So here is

Zeepheus wrote:

So here is what Fred Phelps had to say when they interviewed him. This is in the news around here again because a federal court said that a local ordinance that restricts how close a protest can be to the military funeral was struck down.

 

 http://www.kmov.com/video/featured-videos/Pastor-Fred-Phelps-explains-Westboro-Baptist-philosophy-to-Craigh-Cheatham-113482814.html

 

Sorry I don't know haw to actualy put the vid in the the posts so I just provide the links.

And the court was right.

I am an atheist, but if any Christian or Muslim wants to protest my funeral, they are subject to the same laws as every citizen.

If one is NOT violating noise laws, or private property laws, or impeding the motion of others, they can be as much of a dick as they want.

I WANT Fred Phelps to protest my funeral. Not because I agree with him. But because I advocate what he ultimately despises, like the dictator god he sucks the dick of, dissent.

When "Imadumbassjerk" the PM of Iran spoke at Columbia University many on the right were outraged that they let a tyrant speak at a U.S. University.

But when the President of Columbia introduced the dictator of Iran, he blasted the PM and Iran for their tyranny. And after the dictator's speech they had a Q and A segment. Thats when American students asked this dickhead if Iran had any gays living there. "Imadumbassjerk" denied the existence of gays and asked for proof and address of gays. THE AUDIENCE LAUGHED IN HIS FACE!

My point is, passing laws to stop people from saying mean things about you is not as affective as telling them to fuck off. Taboos are what Iran has when it comes to the voices of Non Muslims. I am not about to tell a Christian or a Muslim they cant say absurd or bigoted things about me. I can say that if they do, I will respond, just like the Colombia audience who knew gays existed in Iran.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Zeepheus
atheist
Zeepheus's picture
Posts: 50
Joined: 2011-08-26
User is offlineOffline
Hate computers sometimes

OK so I had this long post almost done when my computer crashed now I have to get to work so I will simply say. I agree that these people have the 1st amendment right to protest and I support that right. I do have some concerns though but I will address those later when I have time to reconstruct my previous post.

I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

You see that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb.


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
peterweal wrote: How the

peterweal wrote:

How the @#&$  do you embed videos on here?

Have to do it the old-fashioned way.

On YT:

  • Click Share, then Embed
  • Make sure "Use old embed code" is selected.
  • Copy the code from the textbox.

On RRS, in the post editor:

  • Make a blank line where you'll put the vid
  • Click Source to edit the HTML. Find the place where you put the blank line. You'll probably see: <p>&nbsp;</p>
  • Instead of that, paste in the embed code to make it like this: <p><object .... etc. ... </object></p>
  • Click Source again to go back to regular editor. You won't be able to see the video, however. It's there though, which you can double-check back in HTML mode if you want.
  • Eventually, click "Post comment"

 

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Zeepheus wrote:OK so I had

Zeepheus wrote:

OK so I had this long post almost done when my computer crashed now I have to get to work so I will simply say. I agree that these people have the 1st amendment right to protest and I support that right. I do have some concerns though but I will address those later when I have time to reconstruct my previous post.

I feel ya! I hate when that shit happens.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Zeepheus
atheist
Zeepheus's picture
Posts: 50
Joined: 2011-08-26
User is offlineOffline
So now I shall try to

So now I shall try to remember all my thoughts before the crash.

 

First and very simply Yes I agree the supreme court got the decision to allow these protests right. IT wasn't so much an issue of do they have the right to protest the real issue was is what they are saying protected speech. The problem is what they are saying borders on hate speech which is not protected by the 1st amendment. While I find these people reprehensible I can not deny that they have the right to say what they are. The supreme court found and rightly so I feel that the speech is protected and not hate speech. This said I have a problem with the federal court ruling against the municipality's putting a restriction on where the protests can take place. First I want to say this is where my personal opinion and personal feelings take over from my logic. I know that this thought is a very slippery slope and logically I know that it is not exactly constitutional. I do have a problem with municipalities not being able to put reasonable restrictions on where the protest can take place. I know that reasonable restrictions is all a matter of opinion and my opinion is 200 to 300 feet from the funeral home / church / whatever is the final destination. You are not taking away the right to protest and you are not baring the from the processional route. It is giving the family some distance from the protesters. Again I know there is some issue here but it is my personal feeling being from a family with alot of military members and friends. I have been to 3 of these funeral processions locally (I personally know one of the fallen soldiers) and I saw westboro at one of them and it made me mad. This is where the emotional response supersedes what I know has to be the case per the 1st amendment.

I do have to tip my hat to the Patriot Guard for holding up the giant American flag in front of the protesters and completely blocking them off from the view of the family.

 

Sorry about the wandering nature of this the original was much more organized but I really only have a few minutes to try to reconstruct this it is time to feed the kids.

 

 

I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

You see that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote: hate speech which is

Quote:
hate speech which is not protected by the 1st amendment.

We must not be reading the same Constitution.

I have the right to say "I hate Christians" (I don't hate all Christians in reality, just the religion as a claim and an idea) but even if I was a bigot I would still have the right to say "I hate all Christians". Just like Noony has the right to use "Jew" as a slur. I don't have to like it, and I have every right to call him an asshole in response. But neither of us have the right to call for each others death merely because we hate the other. Noony doesn't have to like me and I certainly don't like him.

Hate speech IS protected and SHOULD be protected.

WHAT IS NOT PROTECTED are calls to violence which apply to groups or individuals. THAT is called common law.

I cannot say "Go kill Christians" any more than I can say "Go kill my wife" Both of those examples should be criminal if done.

BUT no one has the right, especially my government, to tell me I am not allowed to express my emotions.

I am glad you had no hand in writing our Constitution.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Zeepheus
atheist
Zeepheus's picture
Posts: 50
Joined: 2011-08-26
User is offlineOffline
Poor word choice

OK the use of the word hate speech was the wrong word. What the test of this case was and what I meant by hate speech was regarding the fighting words doctrine. The general argument of this case that got in front of the Supreme court was that the signs and slogans they were using were a violation of this doctrine. Over the years the supreme court has narrowed the doctrine but it still exists so "fighting words" are a violation of the 1st amendment. What are fighting words well that is the million dollar question and still up for interpretation. The last time this Doctrine was truly visited by the Supreme court was sometime in the early 90's (I know we discussed in in my supreme court decisions class in college). This doctrine was not further interpreted when the westboro case came before the supreme court the justices simply stated that westboro did not violate the 1st amendment. I will be honest and say that I am glad I didn't write the constitution either. Most things were left intentionally broad so they could be interpreted or amended as needed I would have tried to write in every conceivable issue and that would cause so many problems no to mention making the bill of rights into a novel.

I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

You see that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb.