He makes me sick.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
Phelps is a drunk.
[ October 16, 2003, 12:00 AM: Message edited by: Robespierre ]
Posted by fiazko (Member # 5812) on :
people like him are the reason i avoid the news.
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
Holy cow.
Er, or rather, unholy cow.
That guy's really disgusting. His words condemn him over and over as not being in line with the gospel he professes to preach.
"God hates fags" indeed.
I wonder how he feels about hypocrites. And sanctimonious bastards.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
It seems Phelps has Issues. In my opinion, people should take the advice in the URL and just stop reacting.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Let him put it up, all it will do is waste 15,000 dollars of this idiot's money.
People will deface and possibly destroy the stupid thing almost immediately, and it won't change anyone's mind on the subject. If anything it will backlash against this fool's agenda.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Phelps and his gang picketed a church near here a few years ago. I thought the church handled it very well – they asked people please NOT to show up to counter-protest, but to come after he left and help scrub the street where he’d been.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
I wonder how he'd feel about my foot up his....
That's just... I hate that that's newsworthy. If everyone ignored him, he'd get discouraged and go away, the big bully.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Far be it from me to promote vandalism, but anyone want to take bets on how long it would be before someone decided to "improve" such a statue?
Or perhaps another group could put up their own monument to Phelps. I'm thinking that the verse about "whitewashed tombs" would do nicely.
[ October 16, 2003, 12:19 AM: Message edited by: Shigosei ]
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
I hate the fact that he had the gall to protest the funeral. Gah! I mean, supposedly, he got his way, right? The "f-- got what he deserved", didn't he? Why couldn't he just leave the family alone?
Sometimes I hate people.
[ October 16, 2003, 12:21 AM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Yeah, it's people like him that make it so hard to be a Christian. I know that most people realize that guys like Phelps are nutcases, not at all representative of Christianity, but I'm still ashamed to be sharing a religion with him. Heck, I'm ashamed to share a species with him.
Why can't people like him just go away and let the rest of us love others as Jesus intended? Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
I've been aware of this person and his so-called "ministry" for a long time. The thing I can't understand is, how can anyone have that much hate in them? He goes out there and specifically tries to be mean and hateful and hurtful, and calls it doing God's work.
Well, he ain't doing the work of any God I believe in.
Edit to correct stupid spelling.
[ October 16, 2003, 12:45 AM: Message edited by: littlemissattitude ]
Posted by Laurenz0 (Member # 5336) on :
In fairness to Phelps, it does say in the bible that god detests homosexuals. I quote exactly.
So if the bible says it, it must be true right? Think about it.
edit: mind you, thats the new literary translation, which leaves no room for metaphors.
[ October 16, 2003, 12:53 AM: Message edited by: Laurenz0 ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
And all this time, I thought the Old Testament was in Hebrew.
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
I don't think the issue right now is whether or not homosexuality is moral (unless, of course, you succeed in turning that into the issue), but rather the way this guy promotes that agenda. We have quite a few hatrackers who passionately believe that homosexuality is a sin, but I suspect--I believe--that they would condemn this man's actions as well, at least insofar as he claims awareness of the status of a person's soul, and his turning a family's mourning into a carnival of hate.
Posted by Laurenz0 (Member # 5336) on :
quote:but rather the way this guy promotes that agenda
But what a better way to raise awarness than what he is doing now, marching at the funeral, that will make people notice.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
We aren't allowed to say who goes to hell. That's god's job.
Or so I've been told.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Laurenz0, awareness of what? Vicious hate? His absolute lack of love or kindness or even simple courtesy?
Posted by Laurenz0 (Member # 5336) on :
Vicious hate of sinners, you have to understand that. Its okay because they are sinners.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
NO.
Vicious hate has NO place. It blinds, it says "The ends justify the means."
Hate should be of sin, not sinners, in any case.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Are you playing devil's advocate?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Please tell me you are joking.
If not, then you scare me.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Well, if you're going to hate everyone who sins, I really think you should start with yourself.
Posted by Laurenz0 (Member # 5336) on :
quote:Are you playing devil's advocate?
Not quite, I'm actually going somwhere with this. See, while all you seem to hate the man and think its wrong absoloutly no questions, which actually goes against one of your philosophies, hate the sin not the sinner.
This man is like any other crusader, he is fighting very hard for something he belives in and won't stop at anything. You could compare him to martin luther king. Just think about it.
Everything this man has been born and raised with tells him that being gay is a horrible sin. And look, he sees it rising up all around him. And he is trying to do everything in his power to rid the world of a great evil.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Pfft. I never said I hated the man. He just isn't one of my favorite people. Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
Yes. She's trolling. I actually don't mean that in the "evil" sort of way that Cedrios has done it, but she's clearly trying to get a rise, perhaps to make the debate more interesting.
-o-
Where does that statement come from, that God loves the sinner but hates the sin? That would seem to imply to me that it's not OK to hate just because "they" are sinners.
Worst case, they are unrepentant of their sin of homosexuality. Clearly, he is unrepentant of his own sins of hatred, pride, and self-righteousness. I do remember where Jesus said people should take the log out of their own eye before they concerned themselves with the splinter in somebody else's.
Posted by Laurenz0 (Member # 5336) on :
Whoops, forgot to get to where I was going. I see this man as misguided. But he would see me the same way. I just feel sad that there is so much hatred in the world. And nothing we can do about it.
[ October 16, 2003, 01:19 AM: Message edited by: Laurenz0 ]
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: We have quite a few hatrackers who passionately believe that homosexuality is a sin, but I suspect--I believe--that they would condemn this man's actions as well
Bingo. At least for me. I believe that homosexual intimacy is sinful, but persecution is persecution, and it SHOULD NOT STAND! I find it revolting.
The way I see it is, love the sinners, hate their sins. Don't hate the sinners.
Homosexual persecution is one of the biggest hypocrisies that I know of today, especially if the persecutors claim to be Christians.
Posted by Laurenz0 (Member # 5336) on :
quote:She
She?
*feels groin area*
whew, scared me for a second.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Did the she apply to me, because I wasn't trolling, I was just commenting on what Laurenzo had just said. Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
Being disgusted by somebody's actions is not the same as hating the person. If I knew him, I probably would be guilty of hatred, but at my distance I can be more coldly analytical.
Comparing him to King is specious in the extreme. I'd like to see you justify that comparison with something less nebulous than "they both fought for something they believed in," and get into specifics of how they attempted to achieve their means.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Icky, AIM. *glare*
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
While I can't claim to hate this man personally, I do hate his actions, the idea of him, and everything that he represents.
And I'm not Christian, so I can hate whoever I want .
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
I was referring to Laurenzo. My apologies for the gender confusion. Something in one of his earliest posts here made me think he was a she.
Posted by fiazko (Member # 5812) on :
i'm with nick and laurenz0. i think a good portion of th world's conflict comes from people refusing to see any way other than their own. believing that someone is wrong is no grounds for condemning them. it's their actions and/or beliefs that should be disputed. imagine how much more peaceful the world would be if people would just agree to disagree.
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
but he's commiting the same crime of hating the sinners. He's attacking the people, not the sin
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: We aren't allowed to say who goes to hell. That's god's job.
Or so I've been told.
Agreed.
He who is without sin, cast the first stone. Not an exact quote, but good enough to get my point across.
[ October 16, 2003, 01:26 AM: Message edited by: Nick ]
Posted by Laurenz0 (Member # 5336) on :
quote:but he's commiting the same crime of hating the sinners. He's attacking the people, not the sin
Its my turn to agree (and I don't like to agree) Yes, your right. But I was just pointing out why he is doing it. And you can really make him sound quite noble (however you spell it). Its just sad that people think like this.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I don't need stones!
I have my stick! Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
quote: i'm with nick and laurenz0.
I get the sense that we're all actually in agreement on that one.
(Hence my statement.)
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: I don't need stones!
I have my stick!
*takes away mack's stick* *gives her nun-chucks instead*
jk Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
fiazko, how can you agree with both Laurenz0 and Nick? There doesn't seem to be much overlap in their positions.
Don't even think it! *glares*
[Edit: Wait, wait, missed a post! Nevermind.]
[ October 16, 2003, 01:33 AM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
quote: He who is without sin, cast the first stone.
Well, I was raised Catholic.
In our gospel, Mary showed up and beat the snot out of the woman.
Posted by Laurenz0 (Member # 5336) on :
quote:I get the sense that we're all actually in agreement on that one.
yeah, it seems to go that way on this site. We need to get some people with completely differant value systems in here.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
You know, Laurenz0, some people consider reaching agreement a good thing.
Not something to try to prevent or bemoan.
Posted by fiazko (Member # 5812) on :
quote: See, while all you seem to hate the man and think its wrong absoloutly no questions, which actually goes against one of your philosophies, hate the sin not the sinner.
This man is like any other crusader, he is fighting very hard for something he belives in and won't stop at anything. You could compare him to martin luther king. Just think about it.
Everything this man has been born and raised with tells him that being gay is a horrible sin. And look, he sees it rising up all around him. And he is trying to do everything in his power to rid the world of a great evil.
i agree with laurenzo in that i condemn the guy's actions, not the guy himself. everyone has just as much right to their own beliefs as they do to their own opinions. i think that where the right stops is with inflicting those beliefs/opinions on other people. no one is the ultimate authority on anything and to behave as such is against everyone else's rights.
quote: The way I see it is, love the sinners, hate their sins. Don't hate the sinners.
again, condemn the guy's actions, not the guy himself. they may not be saying the same thing, but they're on the same side, and thus far, that's the side i'm on. not that this is a war anyway.
Posted by fiazko (Member # 5812) on :
ok, rivka. didn't get your edit before i posted.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Do people think he has First Amendment rights to do this?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Got to love Leviticus. I figure they could hold the stonings right after these people appear on Jerry Springer:
20:9 Any person who curses his father or mother shall therefore be put to death. Since he has cursed his father or mother, he shall be stoned to death.
20:10 If a man commits adultery with a married woman, [and] she is the wife of a fellow [Israelite], both the adulterer and adulteress shall be put to death.
20:12 If a man has intercourse with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall be put to death. Since they have committed an utterly detestable perversion, they shall be stoned to death.
20:11 If a man has intercourse with his father's wife, he has committed a sexual offense against his father. Therefore, both of them shall be put to death by stoning. Any man or woman who is involved in [the practices of] the mediums or oracles shall be put to death. They shall be pelted to death with stones, and thus stoned to death.
20:27 Any man or woman who is involved in [the practices of] the mediums or oracles shall be put to death. They shall be pelted to death with stones, and thus stoned to death.
_______
I never did like football.
Leviticus 5:2 Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether [it be] a carcase of an unclean beast, or a carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean creeping things, and [if] it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and guilty.
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
20:99 Any man who interferes with the catch of any kind of pop-up ball in a championship series shall be put to death. Since he has cursed his team, he shall be pelted with beer and garbage.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Does he have first amendment rights? Yeah, probably. However, that doesn't mean that we as individuals need to listen to what he has to say. I can't ask the government to shut him up, but I can sure stand up and say that I condemn his message and his methods and that I just wish he'd go away and hate people in the privacy of his own home. As for the statue, he'd probably win in the courts on this one. However, I would expect to see it reduced to little stone chips by the next morning if it were ever installed, and the police just might look the other way. But he can still try to put it up if he wants.
That's the beauty of the free world. You can say whatever you want, even if it's as crazy as Phelps's message. I pity the guy in some ways. He seems a tad...unstable. Perhaps the city should give him a coupon for some free visits to the therapist as a reward for all his hard work in letting everyone know the Evils of Homosexuality.
Disclaimer: I am in no way advocating vandalism or any other crimes. My comments are purely speculation that others will vandalize the abomination in question. Nor do I make any actual claims as to the sanity of Mr. Phelps. (It would be interesting to see if he could make a libel charge stick for someone implying that he is insane, though. If it could be proven that he's not sane, it wouldn't be libel, would it?)
[ October 16, 2003, 04:55 AM: Message edited by: Shigosei ]
Posted by Mormo (Member # 5799) on :
quote: This man is like any other crusader, he is fighting very hard for something he belives[sic] in and won't stop at anything. You could compare him to martin luther king. Just think about it
Laurenz0 de Medici. True, you could compare compare this sanctimonious, self-righteous, holier-than-thou blow-hard Phelps to the Reverend Doctor. But Phelps won't compare well at all. Just the most obvious of differences: King and his followers did "stop at anything." King kept the campaign as non-violent as he could, emulating Ghandi's campaign to kick the British out of India. King sought and succeded in raising the consciousness of the nation, did not try to benight our consciousness with hate and damnation. King and his followers fought the evils of systematic racism and hatred with a message of love and tolerance that has been remembered and cherished . Phelps and his misbegotten followers fight the "evils" of homosexuality with a message of hate and intolerance, violence and damnation. Yes, they both fought hard for what they believe in. SO? What they fought for and their methods could not be more different. I don't recall Dr. King showing up at any racist's funeral and disrespecting their memory and their family. Nor can I recall King or his followers erecting any lavish monuments to damnation. But I'm sure Lorenzo can enlighten us all with such spectacles. King was one of the greatest Americans of the 20th Century. Phelps doesn't even rate a footnote or a mocking bumper sticker. The verses and Christ's philosophy of "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and "love the sinners, hate their sins" and "take the beam out of thine own eye before worrying about the mote in thy brother's eye" have already been mentioned, and are crucial to that philosophy. Phelps needs to concern himself about the unadulterated hate in his heart and the freakin' lumberyard in his own eye before he goes around pointing fingers. How about "Judge not lest ye be judged?" And "love thy brother as thyself?" Phelp's calling himself "Christian" should and does apall true followers of Christ's teachings everywhere.
I'm more in favor of free speech rights than almost anyone I know. But picketing the funeral of someone who was tortured and killed by strangers and erecting a $15000 monument to said victim's "damnation" is pushing it. The monument should not be allowed on public property. I predict it will be erected on private property and vandalized if not destroyed. And I would gladly shake the hand of anyone who took part.
quote: And you can really make him sound quite noble. We need to get some people with completely differant value systems in here. I see this man as misguided. But he would see me the same way. I just feel sad that there is so much hatred in the world. And nothing we can do about it.
Laurenz0. Few consider picketing at funerals "noble", unless they are as fanatical as Phelps. Most would say it is shockingly rude and disrespectful, for any reason. Somehow I doubt there will ever be a Phelps Day in America. Yes, diversity of opinion is a great thing. However, Hatrack to me stands for tolerence, not its opposite. Which is why near-unanimity at this forum against Phelps' message of hate doesn't bother me in the slightest. Thank God for that last quote, Laurenzo! *pulls plug on monument to Laurenzo's damnation*
And we can fight hate. Every time we speak out against it we fight it .
[ October 16, 2003, 07:47 AM: Message edited by: Mormo ]
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
I'm fine with it, as long as we can put this monument next to it:
October 16, 2003:
Pseudo-religious jackass sent to Hell with one of these.
Right after he got one of these jammed in his eye.
That's my kind of free speech.
Posted by Peter (Member # 4373) on :
While i feel sorry for Phelps, what he is doing is no less of a sin than what he is condeming. the bible states that ALL sin warrants death. not just homosexuality. If this minister can stand up and say 'I am without sin, let me cast the first stone.' then i'd feel free to let him do so. but he is no more innocent in the eyes of God than the homosexuals. yes, u can argue that homosexuality is a choice, and u dont have to participate, but all sins are a choice. i know i am a sinner, and i realize that by typing this i am sinning, i am judgeing another man. but i realize im not perfect. and if this affects even one of you out there, then my sin was worth it.
ok, that got uhh.....different at the end, so im gonna limit myself and leave it at that
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I posted about this just after it happened, but I actually got to witness the Phelps clan run away. They were protesting a biblical scholar who was speaking at the University of Kansas, but made the mistake of doing it on the first really beautiful day of the year. The building at which the scholar was speaking is only half a block or so from a bar just off campus, so in addition to their intended audience, Phelps' followers had an audience of 60 or so college students in various levels of inebriation. Before too long, a pair of women approached the protesters and started kissing in front of them. The Phelpsites formed little knots around their children (who they typically use to wave their "God Hates Fags" signs) and fled.
A kind of funny footnote is that the women who were kissing were obviously uncomfortable with doing so.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
Is it any wonder that when it came time to make an entry for Earth in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the text they settled upon was: Mostly Harmless.
What worries me is what wakkos like this are going to do once American homosexuals eventually do gain equal rights.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I have a question.
Those who are advocating violence against this man and desecration of the statement he wants to make, what makes you different from those who applauded the violence done to Matthew Shepherd?
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
In a world of preemptive war I guess you could say he deserves it?
*shrugs*
I don't really advocate violence against Phelps myself. The longer he lives in peace the greater his reward will be from Satan. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You think someone could deserve vigilante violence?
Don't you think that was the argument of the original perpetrators?
I know you aren't personally advocating violence, but I see an incredible inconsistency in labeling one group of vigilantes as monsters and another as having a point but probably unwise.
[ October 16, 2003, 09:34 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
As I said, I don't advocate violence against Phelps. I'll say it again to be clear: I don't advocate violence against Phelps.
(Edit: Thanks for editing your post instead of quoting me as being for the opposite of what I said.)
I supposed that, to those who DO advocate that violence (though it's worth pointing out that beating a man to death and desecrating a "monument" are two VERY different things) the difference is that Phelps is forwarding an agenda that hurts people--gay and straight alike--and would therefore be much more "deserving" of it than, say, a guy who was beat to death for the way he was born.
[ October 16, 2003, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: Caleb Varns ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Ah. The "shooting people I like is worse than shooting people I don't like" argument.
Caleb, my post was originally directed to those who WERE advocating violence in the first place.
Vigilante violence of any kind is wrong. It isn't less wrong because you disagree with the receiver's beliefs.
------
Okay.
Why is vigilante violence wrong at all? I was just thinking about this.
From a societal point of view, everyone is less safe if violence can occur without consequences. From that point of view, it doesn't matter who is doing the violence and who is recieving it - unencumbered violence of any kind is detrimental.
Why else would it be in society's interest to forbid violence?
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
It is not necessarily wrong, but you will have to deal with the consequences. Thus, most people decide that whatever they would like to stop is not really that big a deal after all... at least in countries where vigilantism is frowned upon.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So vigilantism is wrong because it is ultimately not in the vigilante's self-interest?
Posted by UTAH (Member # 5032) on :
You guys are giving this person way too much of your time. (Humble opinion.)
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
quote:Ah. The "shooting people I like is worse than shooting people I don't like" argument.
Ah!
What is this "Ah"? And what is this "shooting people I don't like"? Where do you GET this stuff?
Phelps' monument, if it is erected, will be there to desecrate a person and his family. The desecration of his monument, in turn, is what I call "deserved". In point of fact, that desecration is far less harmful than the monument itself. Hurting a piece of stone (presumably) is quite a bit different than slandering and disrespecting a human being and his family--and the homosexual community which already lives in a certain degree of fear towards those with like-minded philosophies as Phelps.
In any case, your depiction of deciding whom to shoot is grossly inaccurate of those in this thread who advocate a counterattack on the monument itself.
A. It's a counterattack, which means it's done in reaction. That's much different than an arbitrary shooting of someone because you dislike them rather than like them.
B. It's not shooting anyone, whether they like them or not.
C. You are blaming them for advocating "violence" when all they've suggested is defacing a monument. Certainly that can be called violence, but others could see the very same action as NON-violent protest. How are you defining violence in this situation?
Yeah, you're right. All violence is bad. Was anybody here arguing otherwise?
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
Well, not so much wrong as usually counterproductive, at least in most "civilized" countries.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
<edited because not needed>
Caleb: Yes. In this thread.
[ October 16, 2003, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
Wow. Well I missed that one entirely.
Unless there's some medical purpose for using that sword on someone's eye, I'd say whoever said that (you just deleted it so I can't search for it because I don't remember what it said and I don't feel like reading the whole thread to find it ) is just a tad bit overreacting.
Still, I highly doubt that they were anywhere near as serious as Phelps is when he hands children signs about hating homosexuals.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm sure they weren't.
Maybe it's the no sense of humor thing. There will be times where my sense of humor completely disappears, and it's hard to chart. This guy seems like such a wackjob and so far away I can't do anything, his malevolence seems very apparent to everyone, but the talk of striking back in various ways seemed more real and therefore more concerning in the immediate sense, even if much less consequential in the absolute sense.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I disagree.
I mean with the idea that this guy is just a misguided zealot fighting to do what he believes is good.
I think he knows exactly what he is doing.
I call him a "Ceasar in Temple Robes", "A Wolf in Shepherds Clothing", a man who dresses like a minister, but confuses the power of God with the power of the church, who sees the worship his followers offer to God and believes it is worship offered to him. He beleives that politcal power will follow from his ministries, and does not care about those he ministers too.
Pity his followers, his dupes, and his victims, but do not pity this man who abuses Christianity for the vain ego-trip of seeing himself on TV.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
"This guy seems like such a wackjob and so far away I can't do anything."
But you can. You can give him a flashlight, a map, and a door; with sunshine on the other side to boot!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Can you imagine me sending him a BoM? That kind is usually on a hating-everybody spree. I'm sure I'd be in line.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
kat:
quote:Those who are advocating violence against this man and desecration of the statement he wants to make, what makes you different from those who applauded the violence done to Matthew Shepherd?
Probably the fact that they're not serious? Gee.
I mean, really, there's a difference between making animations of, say, Bill Gates getting shot in the head and actually going to his funeral (if and when) to cheer.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Just FYI, he pickets ballet performances too, because--as I'm sure you're aware--all ballet dancers are gay.
What other groups does he protest regularly? I know there are others, but I can't remember which.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Not to defend them, but how do you know those who applauded the first violence were serious?
I mean, they didn't actually do it and probably never would. Can't they joke about it with the same impunity?
The major flaw in the above is one violence is theoretical and the other actually occurred. Okay... what about Father Gaugin being strangled in prison. Where does that stand?
I bring up that example because when I first heard, my first reaction was "Serves him right." I was then promptly horrified at myself. How is that different? It's still vigilante justice, only we are generally culpable because the state, acting on our behalf, put in a position where he could not avoid the vigilante violence.
[ October 16, 2003, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
quote: I bring up that example because when I first heard, my first reaction was "Serves him right." I was then promptly horrified at myself.
I can understand feeling a little bit of 'serves him right' in that situation. The clincher is that you felt bad about it, just as I did. That's more an issue of making prisons safer, and finding someone to take responsibility for the fact that he wasn't watched. And of course, the person who actually killed him.
Let's say somehow this reverend guy is killed or injured. That would be a bad thing, especially if the perpetrator was gay or supported gays, because it would merely prove this guy's point. This would be a bad situation.
When I implied violence against this guy, it was not because I felt like driving to wherever the heck he is and doing something violent to him, it was because I know that if he was right in front of me, preaching his hatred and I had nowhere to go, I'd be hard-pressed to keep myself from kicking him as hard as I could and running away.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Did the she apply to me, because I wasn't trolling, I was just commenting on what Laurenzo had just said. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
of homosexuality with a message of hate and intolerance, violence and damnation. Yes, they both fought hard for what they believe in. SO? What they fought for and their methods could not be more different. I don't recall Dr. King showing up at any racist's funeral and disrespecting their memory and their family. Nor can I recall King or his followers erecting any lavish monuments to damnation. But I'm sure Lorenzo can enlighten us all with such spectacles. King was one of the greatest Americans of the 20th Century. Phelps doesn't even rate a footnote or a mocking bumper sticker.![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)