A quarter million people petition for the Westboro Baptist Church to be reclassified as a hate group

[tkioz]

When people ask me why I don't want a Bill of Rights for Australia all I need to do is point a finger at the WBC and the NRA. Groups like that are what you get when you have unfettered and broad "rights" that fail to take into account COMMON SENSE.

I'd much rather stay with the system of common law and legislation that we've got now.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

Those arguing for the WBC's Freedom of Speech are ignoring the rights of those directly affected by their protests. Can't call your country truly "free" if you can't even have a funeral in peace.


This petition doesn't kneecap the Freedom of Speech for the WBC anyways so that nonsensical argument needs to stop.

 

[Mr.PlanetEater]

As much as I hate the WBC, I don't see them as a hate group. To me a true hate group would utilize violence and intimidation--ala the Ku Klux Klan--rather than misguided protests. Sometimes all three of these things--again like the Ku Klux Klan.

 

[Cavan]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't the distinction between something being hate or not largely depend on how it is directed. Once there is a victim being directly interacted with isn't that where hate starts and 'beliefs' or 'opinions' end?

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

Much like the mass shooters, I'm pretty convinced that if the Media and public paid less attention to them, they'd probably just go away.

Not likely. There have been quite a few mass shootings in the States this year that didn't get any international attention at all. Mass Shootings and Hate Clubs of people don't go away when the cameras aren't on. If that were the case the KKK would still be a relevant talking point in the media instead of these WBC asshats and Anonymous. Not saying that the media helps the situation with the way it reports on these matters, but its far from the cause of either.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

I think the petition is stupid.

The premise is that the church shouldnt get tax exempt status for being a church because they are hateful.

This is a good point but the reasoning and scope is stupid.

My premise is that ANY church shouldnt get tax exempt status for being a church because fucking common sense and seperation of church and state?

Why focus on such a tiny group? What is this? Why focus this down so small. Their right to speak is fine. Their right for me to pay for it is most certainly not fine.

 

[astrav1]

Yeah it sure is great giving these people the attention they deserve. Let's give them MOAR ATTENSHUN GUIZE! WER SOOO ENLIGHTEND!

 

[LarenzoAOG]

People should be allowed to voice their opinions, but what those people do...go out of there way to make people feel like shit. I would personally love to burn that fucking church down.

There is no love, faith or understanding in that place. It isn't a church, it is a sewer.

I agree, it is a hate group.

church is not about love or understanding, purely faith. blind faith is what WBC do and that is what makes them a church. not a very good one but still a church. if you want to ban them ban all churches, else where do we draw the line? how much hate is too much?

That's like saying we should ban the Hare Krishnas because the Crusades happen, there is always a line, where it lies usually isn't clear, but when someone crosses it it's very clear. There are very obvious differences between the good and bad churches, the ones that are picketing funerals and celebrating strangers' deaths and spreading hate speech are the bad ones.

 

[monkey_man]

I'm still waiting for the day a few soldiers get fed up with the WBC's crap and order in a tactical airstrike. I'm 100% sure their version of the (IMO non-existing) God isn't going to stop 300 pounds of missile crashing through their roof and eradicating their entire familyline. *sigh* Sadly that day hasn't come yet.

I'm Dutch, you have the right to voice an opinion here, but being a big fat bucket of arse will get you into some serious trouble here. The WBC would have been locked up years ago. You cant go to a mans funeral to go and call the deceased names, or even reduce their families to tears on such a sad day. How screwed up do you even have to be, to DOO something like that.

I think America is a great innovator and force in this world, but sometimes it's laws allow stuff that are not okay in this time, or any time really.

 

[disgruntledgamer]

.
if a person in a duck costume walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and hates like a duck, does not mean you should shoot him like a duck.

Depends is this person in a swamp, in a designated hunting area at duck hunting season? Because if he is........

Just saying if you dress like a deer and run around the woods at deer hunting season expect to get shot.

s its ok to shoot people who look like deers because you go out hunting at that time in that place?
as if we needed more arguments against hunting, but were getting offtopic here.

I'm saying don't blame the guy that shoots you. There are just certain things in this world you just don't do and shouldn't have to be told not to do them. You don't run around in the woods during deer hunter season with antlers on your head, you don't protest children's funerals, and you don't stick your hand in a alligators mouth, because if you do bad things are bound to happen and you have no one to blame but yourself.

 

[JohnReaper]

Well... Good. Not sure what the problem is, which the 6 page thread of debating implies.

Some people are complaining its not a problem to go to someone's funeral and mock the recently dead.

 

[Silva]

I think that people worried about "freedom of speech" on this matter really are thinking in a very binary way.

You can encourage freedom of speech while discouraging hate groups like this Church. You can still call a hate group what it is (and thereby not be lying to yourself and others), and not want everything that group does to be policed in a certain way. Of course, it will probably be policed differently if this petition has any impact, but at least that difference will be based on the facts - this group expresses, promotes and encourages hatred of other groups, therefore it is a hate group. Simple.

You have to call a spade a spade for the law to work properly. If you vote against something because the law won't carry it out the way you want it to, then it had best be on a very serious matter. This matter is serious, but not for that reason. It is serious because avoiding calling a hate group what it is sets a dangerous precedent which may lead to legal hypocrisy or excuses made for unfair rulings about other groups of its ilk down the track. Justice is justice because it is maintained down a line, with only finer adjustments, not huge ones, for specific cases.

Honestly I think that the kind of actions this group takes could very likely lead to physical danger to others or to themselves, and so I am very in favour of this petition.

 

[afroebob]

Well you have to remember Westboro is not a church, they are a family of evil/intolerant fucks who decided calling themselves a church would get them more publicity. Even if they were a church they are still a hate group. Just because something is classified as a religion doesn't mean it can't be a hate group, too.

 

[NightmareExpress]

I find it amazing that they haven't already been marked as such.
Freedom of speech is one thing, a great one at that...but to harass the mourning families of young people who have just been killed overseas and try to promote hatred towards and take freedom away from people of different sexual orientations is wrong pure and simple.

The manner of which they treat their children is also despicable, and could certainly be classified as illegal. Those who go against what is "taught" are abused into submission or banished from their home and family. The latter being a blessing in disguise and the earlier being psychologically and emotionally damaging. They are additionally guilty of trespassing and defamation, but the extent to how they can be punished for that is rather iffy.

Hell, I would even go as far as to say that the inhabitants of Jonestown were more sane than these loons.

 

[Strazdas]

People should be allowed to voice their opinions, but what those people do...go out of there way to make people feel like shit. I would personally love to burn that fucking church down.

There is no love, faith or understanding in that place. It isn't a church, it is a sewer.

I agree, it is a hate group.

church is not about love or understanding, purely faith. blind faith is what WBC do and that is what makes them a church. not a very good one but still a church. if you want to ban them ban all churches, else where do we draw the line? how much hate is too much?

That's like saying we should ban the Hare Krishnas because the Crusades happen, there is always a line, where it lies usually isn't clear, but when someone crosses it it's very clear. There are very obvious differences between the good and bad churches, the ones that are picketing funerals and celebrating strangers' deaths and spreading hate speech are the bad ones.

no, thats like saying exactly the opposite. and where the line is is far from clear. it may be clear on your personal level but you have to admit personal feelings are far from objective. Celebrating strangers death should be bannable offence? maybe we shoudl ban america then for delebrating Osama Bin Ladens death?

.
if a person in a duck costume walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and hates like a duck, does not mean you should shoot him like a duck.

Depends is this person in a swamp, in a designated hunting area at duck hunting season? Because if he is........

Just saying if you dress like a deer and run around the woods at deer hunting season expect to get shot.

s its ok to shoot people who look like deers because you go out hunting at that time in that place?
as if we needed more arguments against hunting, but were getting offtopic here.

I'm saying don't blame the guy that shoots you. There are just certain things in this world you just don't do and shouldn't have to be told not to do them. You don't run around in the woods during deer hunter season with antlers on your head, you don't protest children's funerals, and you don't stick your hand in a alligators mouth, because if you do bad things are bound to happen and you have no one to blame but yourself.

ok then, ill go get a gun and shoot some people and then hide under the social norms of "its their fault". and that will be much better than protesting on the other side of the street of a cemetary? interesting thinking.

 

[LarenzoAOG]

People should be allowed to voice their opinions, but what those people do...go out of there way to make people feel like shit. I would personally love to burn that fucking church down.

There is no love, faith or understanding in that place. It isn't a church, it is a sewer.

I agree, it is a hate group.

church is not about love or understanding, purely faith. blind faith is what WBC do and that is what makes them a church. not a very good one but still a church. if you want to ban them ban all churches, else where do we draw the line? how much hate is too much?

That's like saying we should ban the Hare Krishnas because the Crusades happen, there is always a line, where it lies usually isn't clear, but when someone crosses it it's very clear. There are very obvious differences between the good and bad churches, the ones that are picketing funerals and celebrating strangers' deaths and spreading hate speech are the bad ones.

no, thats like saying exactly the opposite. and where the line is is far from clear. it may be clear on your personal level but you have to admit personal feelings are far from objective. Celebrating strangers death should be bannable offence? maybe we shoudl ban america then for delebrating Osama Bin Ladens death?

Your argument is that to get rid of people like WBC, the bad ones, we should get rid of all churches, even the good ones. To get rid of the whole to remove the bad, I understand that getting rid of a part of something sets a precedent that can be followed to get rid of the whole, such as a one denial of free speech could hypothetically lead to a complete abolishment of free speech, saying you can say everything but "x" may lead to not being aloud to say "y" then "z" so on and so forth, was that not what you meant? Unless I interpreted your words incorrectly that seems to be your point.

Please explain to me how that makes any sense at all in real life? That's an archaic black and white bullshit way of looking at things, do you really think that people are that stupid and that unable to realize how far is too far? There may be people like that but they are in the minority, most people know when to stop and when to keep going.

And I know that where the line is is unclear, seeing as how I said that, no one knows where the line is until it's crossed, and while yes, personal feeling do factor in heavily into it, the consensus between most people is that this particular group has gone too far. While strict adherence to the "everyone is created equally" and "all speech should be protected" are wonderfully idealistic, and in a perfect world are completely true, in real life most people realize that those things are bullshit, some people deserve to be treated differently and some people shouldn't be allowed to spew their vitriolic shit.

And I never claimed that celebration of death should be banned, what it comes down to is one group of people using their right to free speech to infringe on others' right to the pursuit of happiness, that is the problem with people like the WBC, they hide behind a right while infringing on the rights of others. The problem, at least in my mind, being that people look at everything too much in terms of either black and white, there are perfectly good grey areas that ought to be explored, my problem with your original statement is that you say "if you want to ban them ban all churches, else where do we draw the line?" we draw the line when we reach the line, we can form a consensus on where the line is, the majority can find and agree on a line.

 

[Strazdas]

Your argument is that to get rid of people like WBC, the bad ones, we should get rid of all churches, even the good ones. To get rid of the whole to remove the bad, I understand that getting rid of a part of something sets a precedent that can be followed to get rid of the whole, such as a one denial of free speech could hypothetically lead to a complete abolishment of free speech, saying you can say everything but "x" may lead to not being aloud to say "y" then "z" so on and so forth, was that not what you meant? Unless I interpreted your words incorrectly that seems to be your point.

Please explain to me how that makes any sense at all in real life? That's an archaic black and white bullshit way of looking at things, do you really think that people are that stupid and that unable to realize how far is too far? There may be people like that but they are in the minority, most people know when to stop and when to keep going.

And I know that where the line is is unclear, seeing as how I said that, no one knows where the line is until it's crossed, and while yes, personal feeling do factor in heavily into it, the consensus between most people is that this particular group has gone too far. While strict adherence to the "everyone is created equally" and "all speech should be protected" are wonderfully idealistic, and in a perfect world are completely true, in real life most people realize that those things are bullshit, some people deserve to be treated differently and some people shouldn't be allowed to spew their vitriolic shit.

And I never claimed that celebration of death should be banned, what it comes down to is one group of people using their right to free speech to infringe on others' right to the pursuit of happiness, that is the problem with people like the WBC, they hide behind a right while infringing on the rights of others. The problem, at least in my mind, being that people look at everything too much in terms of either black and white, there are perfectly good grey areas that ought to be explored, my problem with your original statement is that you say "if you want to ban them ban all churches, else where do we draw the line?" we draw the line when we reach the line, we can form a consensus on where the line is, the majority can find and agree on a line.

my argument is that the reasons to get rid of the people like WBC is based in such a way that it would need to get rid of all churches to be fair, else we are doing the "we dont like it so it has to dissapear" majority rule.

If you need examples of people being stoo stupid and taking ti too far, history is full of it, from crusades to facism.

wait, so you claim that people have a "right to pursuit happiness" and i can infrindge it by doing so little as holding a poster in the other side of the street? ok, so how about this, your post infringes on my right to pursuit hapyness and therefore you must be banned from posting. dont like that? then why double standards?

i see your back to the argument of majority opinion = the only right opinion.

 

[Monsterfurby]

I'm with the German constitution on matters like this:

Human dignity > free speech

.

 

[Aerodyamic]

Seems to me that they're all about hating things. How can a group that's all about hating things not be a hate group?

Sadly, only in a world where common sense prevails would your logic be the correct logic.

Seriously, when the KKK, which is generally considered a hate group, calls you out?

[sub] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/klu-klux-klan-protests-westboro-baptist-church-video/2011/05/31/AGgoiPFH_blog.html[/sub]