Fred Phelps, total asshole, to protest funerals of bus crash victims

neon
neon's picture
Posts: 151
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Fred Phelps, total asshole, to protest funerals of bus crash victims

Wow. This is really, really bad:

A blog notes Fred Phelps' plans to protest at the funerals of the kids killed in the bus crash in Alabama.

This is in the discussion forum of the Alabama news site al.com.

Just when you thought he couldn't get any worse... everything he does is worse.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
What a dickhead. I read

What a dickhead. I read somewhere you get a huge # of hits Googling "Fred Phelps is an asshole." On the other hand he does serve a purpose - helping make religion look even worse.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
I'm so pissed. That's it. My

I'm so pissed.

That's it.

My wife has just told me that she wants to go with me Friday to protest the protesters. Shocked

Incredible. She is absolutely aghast that they would do this.

Looks like 11:15 Friday we'll be near the True Light Church of god. Pictures to follow friday night.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


FundamentallyFlawed
FundamentallyFlawed's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2006-11-02
User is offlineOffline
Counter-protesting this ass

Counter-protesting this ass is just feeding the beast. He wants press... period. He and his "church" (which is mostly just his family) thrive on the attention.

A documentary was made exposing his hate-mongering, and he was actually proud of it. He posted a link on his site.

A lot of groups are starting to give up on protesting against them anymore. They're adopting more of a "give this ass enough rope to hang himself" attitude.

Of course, he would be a hell of a lot easier to ignore if he wasn't tormenting these poor families.


MarthaSplatterhead (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:They're adopting more

Quote:
They're adopting more of a "give this ass enough rope to hang himself" attitude.

Which makes me wonder why he's not already in jail.


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
MarthaSplatterhead

MarthaSplatterhead wrote:
Quote:
They're adopting more of a "give this ass enough rope to hang himself" attitude.

Which makes me wonder why he's not already in jail.

Fred Phelps is a disbarred lawyer.

Law enforcement in Topeka, KS has attempted a couple of times to shut him down by raiding his office and taking computers, etc. Unfortunately, ol' Fred stays just "this side of the law" and nothing can be done. (That pesky First Amendment, I think.)

What really annoys the Topeka police is that they are forced to provide protection to him when he pickets downtown. I know one officer that was on Fred Duty. It started out with Fred calling him "Brother" and ended up with Fred calling him foul names when the officer refused to respond to anything Fred said.

The press in Kansas and Missouri has stopped covering him which, no doubt, annoys Fred to no end! It was when they stopped putting him in the news that he started picketing the funerals of soldiers.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


neon
neon's picture
Posts: 151
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote:I'm so

darth_josh wrote:
I'm so pissed.

That's it.

My wife has just told me that she wants to go with me Friday to protest the protesters. Shocked

Incredible. She is absolutely aghast that they would do this.

Looks like 11:15 Friday we'll be near the True Light Church of god. Pictures to follow friday night.

Bravissimo!


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
FundamentallyFlawed

FundamentallyFlawed wrote:
Counter-protesting this ass is just feeding the beast. He wants press... period. He and his "church" (which is mostly just his family) thrive on the attention.

A documentary was made exposing his hate-mongering, and he was actually proud of it. He posted a link on his site.

A lot of groups are starting to give up on protesting against them anymore. They're adopting more of a "give this ass enough rope to hang himself" attitude.

Of course, he would be a hell of a lot easier to ignore if he wasn't tormenting these poor families.

That's why I can't stay away. I think just standing there with a sign that says, "Your religion is flawed." isn't going to do it either.
I'm going to try to talk to the group leader even if it's Phelps himself. There are a few bible verses that he/she will need to defend.

Huntsville is only 40 miles away and is one of my favorite cities that I've ever been to in the US.

According to the WBC site, they're going to the funeral of Nicole Ford. She left behind a four-year-old son. She survived a gunshot to the face at 15. It was her boyfriend at the time who was charged with the shooting.

I'm not big on funerals. However, this is too much. I don't think the WBC people know the rest of the story so I'm going to print out the article from the Huntsville Times and pass it to them.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


FundamentallyFlawed
FundamentallyFlawed's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2006-11-02
User is offlineOffline
True. I also have a

True. I also have a difficult time ignoring such behavior. It's one of those situations when it's very hard to sit back and do nothing.

At the very least, counter-protesting might give some comfort to the families of the deceased. Knowing that there are good people who refuse to let these bastards disrespect their loved ones might help restore their faith in humanity.

When they started picketing military funerals, a lot of veteran bikers got involved by blocking them from view with their bikes and flags.

When Phelps' daughter appeared on Hannity and Colmes, she called the government a "legislative taliban" because they were trying to establish laws that placed a minimum distance between protests and funerals. Rather ironic... right-wing religious extremists calling somebody else the taliban.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I am among the dissenters

I am among the dissenters when it comes to Mr. Phelps. I think it's great, what he does. He is, at least in some ways, much more honest about the bible than most wishy-washy Christians.

God DOES hate fags.

and Jews

and women

and cattle

and fruitbats

and breakfast cereals...

Wait... I think I got off on a movie quote there...

I'm all in favor of lots and lots of real fundamentalist Christians. The more stupid they look, the more people will look at us and say, "You guys may be onto something here. You've been saying this for years, haven't you!"

If it takes a few pissed interior decorators and wedding planners for the whole country to get a good look at how stupid the bible is, I'm all for it.

(I'm joking, people. Don't bitch at me for that joke, ok?)

{Edit: Yes, I know he's pissing off the parents of those kids, too. Great. Good for him. He's doing God's work. I'm sorry for the parents. I really am. Even so, I fully support his right to be completely stupid. Maybe the parents will get pissed enough to question a god who would be on that moron's side.}

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
For some reason thinking of

For some reason thinking of Fred Phelps I get this image in my mind of a cartoon of God thinking "Why couldn't this asshole have picked the devil?" Laughing out loud

or "Why do I get all the nuts?"

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Frustration

I took some cellphone videos. The quality sucks. It's me talking mostly.
I wasn't able to talk to them. The police had barricades up.
The funniest part is that a guy paid $149 for every ten minutes that the buses were parked in front of the WBC assholes.
They had a roped off protest area and a Huntsville gentleman hired the buses to simply park right in front of them on a main thoroughfare.
I was only able to sneak a peek at two of the signs. When we(note the plural) got too close to the barricades, an officer told us, "Just stay back. They're not getting any closer."
I told him that I wanted to talk to them. He just shook his head 'no'.

On to the videos:

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


MarthaSplatterhead (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
I thought it was really good

I thought it was really good footage. Thanks. But what was the cheering at the end?


Randalllord
Rational VIP!
Randalllord's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2006-04-12
User is offlineOffline
About one year ago these

About one year ago these nutters were scheduled to come in my area. At first, our local group discussed doing a counter protest but decided instead to publish the following press release:

"On Friday December 23, 2005 a funeral for Julia Akins,
killed while in service to her country, will be held at the
Bossier City First Baptist Church with a graveside ceremony to
immediately follow at the Hill Crest Memorial Park in Haughton, LA. She will be given a memorial service of honorable recognition for a fallen soldier
by the US military for her grieving family.

This event is scheduled to be marred by a group of
misguided cult followers of the Westboro Baptist
Church, Topeka KS. They have the irrational idea that the killing of
soldiers while on duty in foreign lands results from the wrath of
God against the United States. They believe that this wrath
is God’s response to our allowing gays to exist in the US military
and to other sins allowed in the US by a secular, and therefore
evil, government.

Wanting to show support to this family, we, the
Shreveport Atheists, wish to convey our sympathies and
respect to this family by not holding a counter protest against
this hate group. We will not become part of a circus that
shows disrespect to a fallen fellow American and we ask that
others do the same."

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
They were going to come to

They were going to come to this area a few months back. They never showed up, but a few of the Freedom Riders did. I'd still like to see a couple Marines or Green Berets kick their asses.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Randalllord
Rational VIP!
Randalllord's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2006-04-12
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle, I think that's

MattShizzle,
I think that's exactly what they want. If there were no cameras or attention given to them they'd get tired and go home if they were ignored. If somone actually struck them, they'd play the poor pious victim card.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca


Randalllord
Rational VIP!
Randalllord's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2006-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Michael Moore lets Fred

Michael Moore lets Fred Phelps have it.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15748
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
neon wrote:Wow. This is

neon wrote:
Wow. This is really, really bad:

A blog notes Fred Phelps' plans to protest at the funerals of the kids killed in the bus crash in Alabama.

This is in the discussion forum of the Alabama news site al.com.

Just when you thought he couldn't get any worse... everything he does is worse.

I would no more attempt to stop this clown from spewing his crap than I would Jerry Falwell or any Bush supporter.

Allowing a jackass a voice is not the same as agreeing.

I would only object IF it were physically interfering with the funerals. Disquesting? Yes, absolutely! Against the law? No.

I really warn the pollitically corect to be carefull what they wish for just as I warn the religiously correct to want more religion in government. What both sides forget, is WHO GETS TO DECIDE?

What we often forget is that WE may not be the ones in office all the time determining what is or is not law. So, the only thing we can do is to find common law, not common morals.

Common law is quite simple and allows EVERYONE a voice.

1. Dont steal
2. Dont harm

But what I will aways defend is that NO ONE no matter how well intended can be the brain of their neighbor.

Phelps is an asshole, no doubt. But if I seek goverment to ban him, they in turn can turn around and do that to me as an atheist, and to say that their are not Christians who want to silence atheists is ignorant in and of itself.

My point is that people have the right to their emotions and even to be irrational and it is because WE have a government and Constitution that doesnt ban dissenting voices is EXACTLY why this site is here today.

Could you emagine a government under the rule of Phelps? I bet you that homophobe would have a gay vice president before he'd allow an atheist to vote.

My point is, let the clown show his colors. I'd rather he do himself in with his own words than to set Christians up to opress me. You institutionalize "hate speech" laws the first people to invoke majority rule on that law WILL BE CHRISTIANS!

Without the protection of dissent sites like this would be outlawed.

"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


neon
neon's picture
Posts: 151
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
When did I say Fred Phelps

When did I say Fred Phelps should have some law enacted against what he does?

I said he's an asshole. That's about it.

On the other hand, there is such a thing as yelling fire in a crowded theater-- and it's illegal. People think free speech means you can say anything you want.

Not quite. It means the speech cannot be compelled by the government.

It is illegal to libel someone, to incite a riot, to make death threats, and as said above, to yell fire in a crowded theater. These are all, technically, restrictions on saying certain words at certain times.

One of these days, someone at one of these funerals is going to get tired of watching Phelps make an ass out of himself, and then it's going to come very close to incitement to riot. Mark my words.

We can all talk about how great free speech is, but frankly, although there are few restrictions on content, the ones that do exist, do so for a very good reason.

It's all well and good to talk about how Fred Phelps is our brother under the Constitution. But imagine if that were your brother they were burying.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15748
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
neon wrote:When did I say

neon wrote:
When did I say Fred Phelps should have some law enacted against what he does?

I said he's an asshole. That's about it.

On the other hand, there is such a thing as yelling fire in a crowded theater-- and it's illegal. People think free speech means you can say anything you want.

Not quite. It means the speech cannot be compelled by the government.

It is illegal to libel someone, to incite a riot, to make death threats, and as said above, to yell fire in a crowded theater. These are all, technically, restrictions on saying certain words at certain times.

One of these days, someone at one of these funerals is going to get tired of watching Phelps make an ass out of himself, and then it's going to come very close to incitement to riot. Mark my words.

We can all talk about how great free speech is, but frankly, although there are few restrictions on content, the ones that do exist, do so for a very good reason.

It's all well and good to talk about how Fred Phelps is our brother under the Constitution. But imagine if that were your brother they were burying.

And who would be the bigger idiot? The guy making the dumbass bigoted remarks or the idiot responding to his dumbass remarks?

I get it. He is a hatefull troll adding a steamy pile to life in general, but as I said dissent must be protected to insure our right to call what he does a "steamy pile".

Fred Phelps is the poster child for PONEY LOAF. But to protect ourselves we must never put government in the position of squashing what they might consider poney loaf, and plenty of people consider what we say and do here as such.

I hate that bastard as much as you. But, as you said, if he is not litterally shouting "fire" in a croweded theatre he is intitled by our constitution to say that the theatre stinks when we enter it as much as we value to say that he stinks up the theatre.

We know that he is a bigot, but one thing I value more than ending bigotry is the idea that you can force emotions out of individuals through government force via pre-emptive laws.

Our laws in America are reactionary, not pre-emptive. Our speed limits say you cant do above the posted speed limit, BUT just because you own a Vette, the cop cannot issue a speeding ticket before he clocks you because he thinks you are going to speed.

The same goes for speech. We do not assume in this country, or at least we should not assume, that because someone doesnt like us that they will automatically have us opressed. Therefore our laws do not reflect that.

Phelps can protest these funerals, not because I like it or think he is a Nobel Peace Prize winner, but because if all he is doing is saying, "I dont like you", our government has no right to stop him.

He is delusionall in that he thinks that everything is the fault of not kissing the butt of Jesus. Nothing illegal about that. Certainly sick, but not illegal.

If he ever says, "Go kill".......then he has broken the law. He hasnt, and as such he has the same civil rights as I do. I dont like it any more than you, but in the long run, protecting the legal actions of others, wiether we like it or not, in the long run, protects us as well.

We will beat assholes like this, but we wont if we give goverment the power of censorship. WHY? Because our government doesnt like us and who do you think they'd censore first if given the power?

"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


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
I agree to freedom of speech

I agree to freedom of speech in the same respect as freedom of religion(They are, after all, in the same amendment.)

We have also specified that there should be freedom FROM religion being held over us.
Free speech, free press, free religion all of which must entail the rights of others to be protected from speech, press, and religion by the government for a 'redress of grievances'. The people have asked their government to prevent the WBC from doing this. The government has sorely failed the people yet the fuck again.

The very idea of me standing outside of a church on Sunday morning screaming "jesus is fake" is aberrant behavior in many people's eyes. Would I get arrested? In a fucking heartbeat. Why? Because my actions are interfering with another groups actions. My speech

Nevermind. I've had this same discussion with others and it is just as futile.
Later.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15748
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote:I agree to

darth_josh wrote:
I agree to freedom of speech in the same respect as freedom of religion(They are, after all, in the same amendment.)

We have also specified that there should be freedom FROM religion being held over us.
Free speech, free press, free religion all of which must entail the rights of others to be protected from speech, press, and religion by the government for a 'redress of grievances'. The people have asked their government to prevent the WBC from doing this. The government has sorely failed the people yet the fuck again.

The very idea of me standing outside of a church on Sunday morning screaming "jesus is fake" is aberrant behavior in many people's eyes. Would I get arrested? In a fucking heartbeat. Why? Because my actions are interfering with another groups actions. My speech

Nevermind. I've had this same discussion with others and it is just as futile.
Later.

You are right, you would get arrested, not because YOU were doing anything wrong, but because those idiots cant take responsibility for their own emotions and want to place that responsibility on YOU.

Like I said, one thing I hate more than bigotry is the idea that you can force political correctness on someone else.

If that is the way you think you scare me.

You have the right to say, "Jesus is fake". If you are on a public sidewalk and not impeding anyones motion, you are well within your rights.

Quote:
Because my actions are interfering with another groups actions. My speech

How? Because you are saying something they find offensive?

So, many people also find this website "offensive" and impedes their rights to be free from our atheism. I am glad they cant force us to be politically correct.

"Play nice" is a utopia, not a reality. Government should not be into building utopias(thought police) and stick to dealing with reality.

"You hurt my feelings"..............So? Then what? Arrest anyone who hurts your feelings?

blah blah blah.....I bet you want to punch my face in for merely saying BLAH BLAH BLAH.........I am making fun of you.....blah blah blah....now what.....blood boiling?

Ok....now....the site owners can do what they want to me since they own it. BUT you cannot force government to tell me "Brian" not to say BLAH BLAH BLAH.......to you just because it pisses you off.

I am glad you dont serve in public office and dont ever think I'd vote for your brand of thought police or politicall correctness just because you are an atheist.

It is too bad you want to play that politically correct crap. I am glad you had no hand in writing the Constitution and I am damned glad you dont sit on the Supreme Court.

"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


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Michael Moore has the right

Michael Moore has the right idea - make them a laughing stock. Note that ol' Fred fled when no one got upset. That's how the KKK lost so much influence: people stopped taking them seriously and just laughed at them.

It was especially fun for me to see this clip - a friend of mine was on the SodomMobile!

Authorities have done what they can without trampling on the First Amendment. They have enacted ordinances restricting how close picketers can be to funerals. What Fred does is just downright mean to the families and friends of the loved one. However, it isn't against the law for Fred to voice his opinion.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:darth_josh

Brian37 wrote:
darth_josh wrote:
I agree to freedom of speech in the same respect as freedom of religion(They are, after all, in the same amendment.)

We have also specified that there should be freedom FROM religion being held over us.
Free speech, free press, free religion all of which must entail the rights of others to be protected from speech, press, and religion by the government for a 'redress of grievances'. The people have asked their government to prevent the WBC from doing this. The government has sorely failed the people yet the fuck again.

The very idea of me standing outside of a church on Sunday morning screaming "jesus is fake" is aberrant behavior in many people's eyes. Would I get arrested? In a fucking heartbeat. Why? Because my actions are interfering with another groups actions. My speech

Nevermind. I've had this same discussion with others and it is just as futile.
Later.

You are right, you would get arrested, not because YOU were doing anything wrong, but because those idiots cant take responsibility for their own emotions and want to place that responsibility on YOU.

Like I said, one thing I hate more than bigotry is the idea that you can force political correctness on someone else.

If that is the way you think you scare me.

You have the right to say, "Jesus is fake". If you are on a public sidewalk and not impeding anyones motion, you are well within your rights.

Quote:
Because my actions are interfering with another groups actions. My speech

How? Because you are saying something they find offensive?

So, many people also find this website "offensive" and impedes their rights to be free from our atheism. I am glad they cant force us to be politically correct.

"Play nice" is a utopia, not a reality. Government should not be into building utopias(thought police) and stick to dealing with reality.

"You hurt my feelings"..............So? Then what? Arrest anyone who hurts your feelings?

blah blah blah.....I bet you want to punch my face in for merely saying BLAH BLAH BLAH.........I am making fun of you.....blah blah blah....now what.....blood boiling?

Ok....now....the site owners can do what they want to me since they own it. BUT you cannot force government to tell me "Brian" not to say BLAH BLAH BLAH.......to you just because it pisses you off.

I am glad you dont serve in public office and dont ever think I'd vote for your brand of thought police or politicall correctness just because you are an atheist.

It is too bad you want to play that politically correct crap. I am glad you had no hand in writing the Constitution and I am damned glad you dont sit on the Supreme Court.

No, Brian. My 'blood is not boiling.'
It isn't about political correctness. It isn't about being 'thought police'. It is about rights.

To use a common metaphor:
I can rightfully swing my arms around in a crowded place. However, the moment that my hand comes in contact with someone else, I have violated their right not to have me touch them.

Who should be there to see that my rights do not interfere with your rights if I am swinging arms and you are being touched by me?
In my opinion, the government.

I completely understand that we ALL have the right to free speech. The guy that paid for the buses to be parked in front of the WBC had every right to do that as well.
The woman in my video has every right to tell them to go home.
The one key thing that people are missing is:
What about the family's right to have a peaceful funeral for Nicole Ford?
That's what seems to fall by the wayside in these discussions concerning 'rights' in my opinion.

Please don't be angry with me. After all, I'm just posting my opinion as well as reading yours. I'm not understanding the hostility towards me but I'll dish it back if you continue.

My 'nevermind' comment comes from having this first amendment discussion more times than I care to count. I keep a copy of the constitution in my right hand middle desk drawer. I am bound in certain unnamed ways to read that first amendment every workday. I also have to understand both sides of that amendment. Things like slander, libel, and defamation of character.

Incidentally, I don't profess to be leadership material nor do I have a desire to serve in any capacity. I can't hold office in Tennessee anyway because I'm an atheist. I would hope that you would vote for someone that you feel worthy anyway not just because they are an atheist.

Ummm. The name of the site is Rational Responders. The last time I checked...... the rrs spends more time responding to theists sending mail than anything else. The 'activism' doesn't come around as often as they are just responding to people with fucked-up beliefs.

The idea that I am politically correct brought a laugh from two other people that I had read this post. Thanks. lol.

I really detest funerals. They're a big waste of money in my opinion. However, people still have the right to have them and have them peacefully.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15748
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote:Brian37

darth_josh wrote:
Brian37 wrote:
darth_josh wrote:
I agree to freedom of speech in the same respect as freedom of religion(They are, after all, in the same amendment.)

We have also specified that there should be freedom FROM religion being held over us.
Free speech, free press, free religion all of which must entail the rights of others to be protected from speech, press, and religion by the government for a 'redress of grievances'. The people have asked their government to prevent the WBC from doing this. The government has sorely failed the people yet the fuck again.

The very idea of me standing outside of a church on Sunday morning screaming "jesus is fake" is aberrant behavior in many people's eyes. Would I get arrested? In a fucking heartbeat. Why? Because my actions are interfering with another groups actions. My speech

Nevermind. I've had this same discussion with others and it is just as futile.
Later.

You are right, you would get arrested, not because YOU were doing anything wrong, but because those idiots cant take responsibility for their own emotions and want to place that responsibility on YOU.

Like I said, one thing I hate more than bigotry is the idea that you can force political correctness on someone else.

If that is the way you think you scare me.

You have the right to say, "Jesus is fake". If you are on a public sidewalk and not impeding anyones motion, you are well within your rights.

Quote:
Because my actions are interfering with another groups actions. My speech

How? Because you are saying something they find offensive?

So, many people also find this website "offensive" and impedes their rights to be free from our atheism. I am glad they cant force us to be politically correct.

"Play nice" is a utopia, not a reality. Government should not be into building utopias(thought police) and stick to dealing with reality.

"You hurt my feelings"..............So? Then what? Arrest anyone who hurts your feelings?

blah blah blah.....I bet you want to punch my face in for merely saying BLAH BLAH BLAH.........I am making fun of you.....blah blah blah....now what.....blood boiling?

Ok....now....the site owners can do what they want to me since they own it. BUT you cannot force government to tell me "Brian" not to say BLAH BLAH BLAH.......to you just because it pisses you off.

I am glad you dont serve in public office and dont ever think I'd vote for your brand of thought police or politicall correctness just because you are an atheist.

It is too bad you want to play that politically correct crap. I am glad you had no hand in writing the Constitution and I am damned glad you dont sit on the Supreme Court.

No, Brian. My 'blood is not boiling.'
It isn't about political correctness. It isn't about being 'thought police'. It is about rights.

To use a common metaphor:
I can rightfully swing my arms around in a crowded place. However, the moment that my hand comes in contact with someone else, I have violated their right not to have me touch them.

Who should be there to see that my rights do not interfere with your rights if I am swinging arms and you are being touched by me?
In my opinion, the government.

I completely understand that we ALL have the right to free speech. The guy that paid for the buses to be parked in front of the WBC had every right to do that as well.
The woman in my video has every right to tell them to go home.
The one key thing that people are missing is:
What about the family's right to have a peaceful funeral for Nicole Ford?
That's what seems to fall by the wayside in these discussions concerning 'rights' in my opinion.

Please don't be angry with me. After all, I'm just posting my opinion as well as reading yours. I'm not understanding the hostility towards me but I'll dish it back if you continue.

My 'nevermind' comment comes from having this first amendment discussion more times than I care to count. I keep a copy of the constitution in my right hand middle desk drawer. I am bound in certain unnamed ways to read that first amendment every workday. I also have to understand both sides of that amendment. Things like slander, libel, and defamation of character.

Incidentally, I don't profess to be leadership material nor do I have a desire to serve in any capacity. I can't hold office in Tennessee anyway because I'm an atheist. I would hope that you would vote for someone that you feel worthy anyway not just because they are an atheist.

Ummm. The name of the site is Rational Responders. The last time I checked...... the rrs spends more time responding to theists sending mail than anything else. The 'activism' doesn't come around as often as they are just responding to people with fucked-up beliefs.

The idea that I am politically correct brought a laugh from two other people that I had read this post. Thanks. lol.

I really detest funerals. They're a big waste of money in my opinion. However, people still have the right to have them and have them peacefully.

I thougt you might go there with this argument.

There are laws called "Disturbing the peace"

Now........What would be the differance between a loud car stereo and a shouting human voice? Answer....nothing.

So. I dont see what your problem is, there are laws in place. You dont need to rewrite what someone's "free speech" is.

Fred Phelps can be as offensive as he wants as long as he is obeying the law. Period. You get into screwing with speech it will come back and bite you in the ass.

"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


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
How very absolutist.

How very absolutist.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15748
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote:How very

darth_josh wrote:
How very absolutist.

Don't go there. You know perfectly well what I mean.

Regulating something is what a "noise violation" is and is based on common law. It is reasonable to for all to agree that certain situations we agree not to be loud as to allow someone else to concintrate.

Don't accuse me of being "absolutist" when all I am warning against is screwing with the First Amendment. Phelps as much as a cese pool of a human he is still has the same rights as you and I as long as he doesnt break common law, and as fucked up as his message is, even he has the right to say it. The free market allows us to counter his crap and as soon as you creat taboos through goverment it sets the stage for the future where government decides what the citizens think, not the citizens themselves.

If he is not creating a noise violation during his protests as hatefull and hurtfull he is being, he has that right.

Again, you completely miss the point that tons of Christians on the web run across sites like this and if given power through government force WOULD deem this hate speech and have it banned.

I am simply warning the politically correct to be carefull what they wish for. I'd rather have someone be hatefull to me directly than have government be my nipple. I dont want to give goverment the power of playing thought police or morality police. I have my own voice and in the free market of ideas pricks like Phelps have no shot. You give goverment the power to create taboos you loose sight that a beurocratic politician can and will use that against you if they dont like your message.

Fighting bigotry and hate should not involve creating a government that forces it's citizens to like each other. Common law already prevents us from doing harm physically or financially to others. There is no need for though crime laws and attitudes like that are dangerous to freedom.

Show me an instance where what someone said harmed someone and I can show you Common law that already covers it. Common law keeps the peace, not morality laws or thought laws.

"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


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
You speak/write as if the

You speak/write as if the government is a separate entity.
The purpose of our government is supposed to be derived from the people.
It doesn't say "We, the government of the United States,....."

Common law??? is anything but in common between the states.
Section one of the 14th lists: "without due process of law"

Wait. You tell me what the 14th means to you.

As far as an instance where someone said something that directly hurt someone, I'll cite countless examples of people, friends, and acquaintances that have been forced from their jobs due to someone discriminating aginst them because of a single piece of their particular ideology. Whether it was atheism, homosexuality, anti-homosexuality, racism, anti-racism or what have you. In some cases, there was no recourse of action because the employer would simply find a moral turpitude clause in the handbook that could be twisted to fit as easily as scripture.
Even to the point that one atheist in particular was labelled as 'immoral' because the word was in the definition of athiesm in a dictionary. No recourse. Called immoral because a dictionary said so and your 'common law' upheld the arbitrator's decision based upon review of the appeal.

I don't want to 'control thoughts'. If I have to 'respect' their right to freedom of speech then they must also respect my right to petition the government for a redress of grievances concerning their interference with my right to a freedom from their speech in my vicinity.

I understand the 'slippery slope' principle of this argument. I really do. It's just hard to sympathize with their rights when so many other peoples are being violated.

We should move on and let society make its decision.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


politicalhumanist
politicalhumanist's picture
Posts: 133
Joined: 2006-10-09
User is offlineOffline
Susan wrote: It started out

Susan wrote:

It started out with Fred calling him "Brother" and ended up with Fred calling him foul names when the officer refused to respond to anything Fred said.

Really? In Washington he would have gone to jail with a felony for assault on an officer.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15748
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote:You

darth_josh wrote:
You speak/write as if the government is a separate entity.
The purpose of our government is supposed to be derived from the people.
It doesn't say "We, the government of the United States,....."

Common law??? is anything but in common between the states.
Section one of the 14th lists: "without due process of law"

Wait. You tell me what the 14th means to you.

As far as an instance where someone said something that directly hurt someone, I'll cite countless examples of people, friends, and acquaintances that have been forced from their jobs due to someone discriminating aginst them because of a single piece of their particular ideology. Whether it was atheism, homosexuality, anti-homosexuality, racism, anti-racism or what have you. In some cases, there was no recourse of action because the employer would simply find a moral turpitude clause in the handbook that could be twisted to fit as easily as scripture.
Even to the point that one atheist in particular was labelled as 'immoral' because the word was in the definition of athiesm in a dictionary. No recourse. Called immoral because a dictionary said so and your 'common law' upheld the arbitrator's decision based upon review of the appeal.

I don't want to 'control thoughts'. If I have to 'respect' their right to freedom of speech then they must also respect my right to petition the government for a redress of grievances concerning their interference with my right to a freedom from their speech in my vicinity.

I understand the 'slippery slope' principle of this argument. I really do. It's just hard to sympathize with their rights when so many other peoples are being violated.

We should move on and let society make its decision.

Tell me something I dont know. People often want stuff that is not good for them even when they think it is. I never said the people have dont have the right to change things they dont like. Please tell me where I said that.

I said "Be carefull what you wish for, you just might get it".

I am simply warning people not to go this route, it is a bad idea. Goverments that control speech can also use that against political enimies and I warn agianst trying to opress dissent throught government. Phelps is "dissenting" and if we dont allow him to do that eventually the goverment can do it to us.

I never accused anyone here of having bad intent, I simply think there are better ways of attacking the problem rather than give goverment that kind of power.

I'd rather Phelps do what he is doing where I can see him than have a goverment that can shut me up because they think what I am doing is "hate speech".

Once again time after time you fail to take into account that YOU might not be the one sitting in power deciding what is and is not offensive and what is and is not "hate speech". You give goverment that kind of power you are going to burn yourself eventually.

"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