posted
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?)
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 .
posted
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
Posts: 283 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
posted
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?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[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)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
