Feeling conflicted here. It's entirely possible, perhaps even reasonable, to look upon this as a victory for free speech -- the old thing about "I hate what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it". This applies even to Phelps; no matter how much I rail about his hateful, evil message, I would not shut it down, even if I could. The notion of "acceptable" speech is about as bad as Fred's hate speech.
The problem is the chosen venue: funerals. The funerals of people whose families likely never imagined someone would protest them, especially for the ridiculous, bigoted, fatuous and self-serving reasons Phelps gives.
Phelps is an attention-seeking, scam-artist jerk. His "church" basically consists of his family, many of whom are lawyers. They go to the funerals of people who he loosely associates with his pet causes, they get a lot of publicity, they get money out of some of them by turning the anger of people who despise what they're doing into civil lawsuits and, eventually, the income that keeps WBC going.
It's a living.
Fred has taken it upon himself to condemn himself and his descendants to being among the most hated people in the country. He's not going to change anybody's mind, and I think he knows that.
Which makes me curious: What is his actual goal? What does he envision his legacy to be? How did he come to this path to get there? Why this, why now? Does he really believe any of this stuff, or is it all just noise and misdirection?
And, the one question I'm sure he'd ask: What if he's right?
The problem is the chosen venue: funerals. The funerals of people whose families likely never imagined someone would protest them, especially for the ridiculous, bigoted, fatuous and self-serving reasons Phelps gives.
Phelps is an attention-seeking, scam-artist jerk. His "church" basically consists of his family, many of whom are lawyers. They go to the funerals of people who he loosely associates with his pet causes, they get a lot of publicity, they get money out of some of them by turning the anger of people who despise what they're doing into civil lawsuits and, eventually, the income that keeps WBC going.
It's a living.
Fred has taken it upon himself to condemn himself and his descendants to being among the most hated people in the country. He's not going to change anybody's mind, and I think he knows that.
Which makes me curious: What is his actual goal? What does he envision his legacy to be? How did he come to this path to get there? Why this, why now? Does he really believe any of this stuff, or is it all just noise and misdirection?
And, the one question I'm sure he'd ask: What if he's right?
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-02 08:04 pm (UTC)What infuriates me almost as much as Phelps himself is that he so clearly demonstrates the hypocrisy of rednecks who can't shut up about how "peaceful muslims should decry the actions of jihadists/terrorists." They never realize that assuming all Muslims are taliban sympathizers is just as ridiculous as assuming that all Christians are Fred Phelps. I tell you one thing, if Phelps was touting himself as a representative of MY religion, I'd be damn clear in assuring people that he does not speak for me.
WBC is not tax-exempt, is it? Geez, I hope not.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-02 10:06 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-03 01:41 am (UTC)- His goal is money, and power.
- He doesn't give a damn about any legacy.
- He's an abusive bastard that is full of hatred and figured out how to make money and gather power from it.
- I don't know what he believes, at this point, but I think he worships at the shrine of the Mighty Dollar, first and foremost.
- If, somehow, he were "right" then I would gladly go to Hell, because I wouldn't want to be anywhere near a god that was like he portrays. Disgusting.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-03 01:47 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-03 01:53 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-03 01:54 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-02 04:40 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-02 04:49 pm (UTC)What we need to figure out is how to turn the tables on him and make his asshattery cost money rather than make money. Perhaps having cemetaries put up signs stating that churches not present for burial services must pay a rental fee (big big number) to prostelyze on their property. After all, the cemetary is private property and they can charge for access in any way they wish. Just get his signature on the contract where 2 hours of use at some funeral costs a mere 10 ^6 dollars (where he's certain to miss the exponent, especially if other typos are on the contract.) He who lives by the court, shall die by the court.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-02 05:15 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-02 05:19 pm (UTC)I'd personally be delighted if the entire membership of the Westboro Baptist Church got struck down by lightning out of a clear blue sky while they were holding one of these funeral protests. But I do think they have a right to hold them, so long as they keep their distance according to local laws.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-02 05:33 pm (UTC)As for why he's doing it, I'm guessing that it's money, pure and simple. As
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-02 06:29 pm (UTC)For my part, I'll just cherry-pick Hebrews 11:1-6 to "prove" that I'm not going to please God. (Or, at least, not the one that Fred Phelps believes in.) With that as a given, I can "prove" that I'm better off not claiming any sort of belief in that particular deity.
(Using logic to prove anything in matters of religion is, in my opinion, a fool's game. I might as well try to determine the weight of a feather with a micrometer.)
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-02 06:54 pm (UTC)My understanding is, they don't go into the cemetary. They line the road that leads to it.
Hence the successful counterprotests of people with more and larger signs who stand in front of them on the same road.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-02 06:55 pm (UTC)The day of Phelps's memorial service is going to be the biggest Pride parade EVER!
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-02 07:02 pm (UTC)The WBC is an awful organization filled with awful people...but this is why the ACLU defended the Illinois Nazis.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-02 07:05 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-02 07:15 pm (UTC)And what if all the air molecules in the room all moved into the corner furthest away from me at the same time? Theoretically, it's possible; but the actual likelihood of the two hypotheses is about the same.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-02 07:31 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-02 07:37 pm (UTC)I don't think it's appropriate to protest a funeral just to piss off someone's friends and relatives--even someone like Fred Phelps. This is, after all, one of the major things that we object to about his behavior.
Would I _celebrate_ the death of someone like that? Perhaps. (What would you call that--an anti-wake? a sleep?) But I wouldn't do it anywhere near the funeral, and I wouldn't "protest" their funeral.
As a side note, if he really is doing this just as a money-making enterprise, then I have no reason to believe that protesting his funeral would even bother him particularly...and it might even make him and/or WBC feel proud for having inspired this.
And the _last_ thing I want is for funeral protesting to become a commonplace event.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-02 07:59 pm (UTC)That's the problem.
I've found myself in weird discussions many times, because I come at it assuming Phelps is right. The Christian god does not like gay people. I've heard it in so many Christian churches I've lost count. Usually as "This is one more sin and God can FIX you." They generally don't say flat out that god hates us.
Nice thing is, there are more gods out there. And some of the like us. Some of them ARE us.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-02 08:08 pm (UTC)The SCOTUS decision is, of course, correct, as was Voltaire. The way to deal with this is to isolate and ignore them. Thankfully, the Patriot Guard already has a well-established protocol for this: They roll in on their motorcycles, get between "protesters" and funeral goers, obscure the one from the other utterly, and are generally indirectly obnoxious to the would-be disruptors (unlike my bikes, theirs tend towards the LOUD :) ... They make a point not to engage any of the sign-carriers, just to be in the right place at the right time.
As for Fredilicious Rex being right?
I decided long ago that I was endowed by That Which Created me with Brains, and that if said Entity was going to get upset with me for using them, I wanted no part of it. Which paradigm failed the Kantian Imperative (i.e. take the conclusion to its logical extreme), so I threw it out.
I'm much happier these days.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-02 08:22 pm (UTC)Must be nice to be so knowing and powerful that one can cherry pick what words of your God are to be followed and what ones are not.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-02 08:29 pm (UTC)To date, the best (and funniest) attack on WBC has come from ANONYMOUS. When Shirley Phelps-Roper (looking gleefully insane in the video) went toe to toe on air with ANONYMOUS, they mounted an immediate cyber attack that took down WBC's website AS THE INTERVIEW HAPPENED; an attack that WBC ASKED for. They poked the tiger and the tiger responded.
This is significant on a number of levels. If anyone is a free speech advocate, it's ANONYMOUS. But, there are members of ANONYMOUS who fully believed that the initial posting on their board (which is an open board) stating that ANONYMOUS was going to target WBC was actually planted there BY WBC, in an attempt to get publicity. This the later denial and retraction of ANONYMOUS. But WBC wouldn't leave it there and arranged the on air interview.
I have some real questions about this. I know that WBC suffers from a collective sort of "Munchausen Syndrome". They have been caught spray painting graffiti on their own fences and calling the police and going through people's trash to create "attacks" on their own church and congregation for the purposes of creating litigation. But why take on ANONYMOUS? Do they really think they are going to create lawsuits out of this? Hell, not even the top security guy at HBGary Fed could figure out who they are (much to his dismay and the cost of his job). Is God going to reveal identities to them? Because without an identity there's not much point in suing.
These people are batshit insane in a way that rivals Heaven's Gate.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-02 08:52 pm (UTC)Phelps is like that. The money is only incidental, although it must be nice for him; I think his sole motivation is to prove he's right. He hasn't gathered a national following, and practically every sane person of every religion recognize that he's a megalomaniac. But he doesn't care, because in his mind, he's right.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-02 08:58 pm (UTC)2. The SCOTUS decision. I have no problem with the Justices decision. They are simply doing their job, which is to present an interpretation of the constitution for or against the case. I'm sure they went through every legal issue before making their decision. I am, of course against the perpertrators of this case (the WBC), but if they wouldn't bring it up, chances are, someone else would.
3. What is there actual goal? There is none. WBC IMHO are the humbug wizard, the false prophets, the rabble rousers, etc. Like all fundies, they are simply making fools of themselves. My real concern is that one day their rants will upset the wrong people.