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

[LarenzoAOG]

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.

Holding signs on the other side of the street =/= Crazy people mocking and celebrating the recent death of your school age child. My entire argument is that we should have the ability to distinguish which is ok and which is crossing the line. I admit majority consensus can lead to problems, but unlike you I have enough faith in humanity and its intelligence to think maybe they won't fuck it up.

Since this isn't going to go anywhere I will bid you a good day.

 

[thatfknninja]

what you are not told is that the creator of the westborough baptist church has ties to the CIA and is a Freemason (incompatible with christianity).

the point of their organisation is to abuse the law, so that new legislation must be created to deal with them, and then the satanic run government (world government), will use that legislation to ban christians. and especially ban christians preaching against satanism.

that is how they intend to secure their tyranny, so it cannot be challenged.

the teachings of god through jesus christ is the only threat to the NWO. the only chance of salvation for each man, this is why they persue an agenda to destroy it.

 

[hooblabla6262]

For the most part, yes. But that doesn't mean that near-by circumstances shouldn't also be considered.
Banning protests near funerals does not ban the act of protesting on the streets.

it does. baning protests on streets near funerals is baning protesting on streets. not all of them, but still.

Children aren't allowed in schools in the evening unless there is some kind of event.
Does that make the statement "Children are banned from schools!" true? No, it does not.
Equally, banning protests at specific times and for specific reasons, does not ban protesting.

a statement "children are banned from school at certain times" is correct.

You good sir....I was at a funeral for a suicide. My Cousin who I was very close to, And someone tried to come to the funeral and declare he was in hell. I felt my heart almost snap. right before I told him to backthe fuck off and get out.

Same concept applies. At a funeral your already raw to the world. and when someone comes along to make a POINT of YOUR family Members Death. I doubt you will stand by and go, "he has a right to say that." Would you.

I would give you a more verbal tounglashing but I would get banned.

1. you did the mistake of allowing your emotions take over your logic. it is YOUR problem.
2. putting yourself into situation, getting emotional response that does not survive after logic is applied is not a way to make your point. if it were, WBC would be right because their emotional response is strnger.

I get that you are playing devils advocate, and trying very hard to get your point across. Good on ya, cause someone should and it isn't always an easy job. That being said, the post above makes you sound like a cold-hearted something or other.

Humans are very emotional creatures. Death is a sensitive subject, especially for those who recently lost someone. To go out of your way to antagonize these people in mourning is wrong, and any group who would do this should be labeled a hate group. Any group that has a website ihatefags.com should be labeled a hate group. For goodness sake, it's in the name!

If it were possible, I'd say we should get rid of religion all together. Seeing as that is not within the current realm of possibility, I'll stick with labeling the hate groups for what they are. Not because we are a majority and them the minority. Not because they believe something different than we. But because they spread hate. Simple as that.

And before you get in to the whole freedom of speech, I should say something. I do not believe in freedom of speech. Fascism for the win!
Now who's the devils advocate?

 

[Strazdas]

Holding signs on the other side of the street =/= Crazy people mocking and celebrating the recent death of your school age child. My entire argument is that we should have the ability to distinguish which is ok and which is crossing the line. I admit majority consensus can lead to problems, but unlike you I have enough faith in humanity and its intelligence to think maybe they won't fuck it up.

Since this isn't going to go anywhere I will bid you a good day.

but we dont. humans dont have such ability, because humans are not objective. and therefore we cannot set a line for "ok". if we do, we are bad people. not that this stopped us before. holding signs can be = people mocking and delebrating death (age has no factor). WBC proven that.
Your subjective opinion may be that humanity is intelligent, but that only gives example to my point.

I get that you are playing devils advocate, and trying very hard to get your point across. Good on ya, cause someone should and it isn't always an easy job. That being said, the post above makes you sound like a cold-hearted something or other.

Humans are very emotional creatures. Death is a sensitive subject, especially for those who recently lost someone. To go out of your way to antagonize these people in mourning is wrong, and any group who would do this should be labeled a hate group. Any group that has a website ihatefags.com should be labeled a hate group. For goodness sake, it's in the name!

If it were possible, I'd say we should get rid of religion all together. Seeing as that is not within the current realm of possibility, I'll stick with labeling the hate groups for what they are. Not because we are a majority and them the minority. Not because they believe something different than we. But because they spread hate. Simple as that.

And before you get in to the whole freedom of speech, I should say something. I do not believe in freedom of speech. Fascism for the win!
Now who's the devils advocate?

i am a cold hearted "insert your mockery here". and i am playind devils advocate. and its nice that some people realize importance of that. after all escapist forum constantly shells out "We need different opinions here" and then hunt you with a stick when you have one.

Humans are very emotional creatures. that is bad. labeling as a hate group would be fine if that was all it was - a label. but its not. its a social comdemnation.

Facism is very effective i can give you that. but freedom of speech has lead to many great things, from abolishment of slavery to gay rights, and to ignore that is foolish.

 

[orangeapples]

WBC belives that what they are doing is the letter of the Bible, so I say their punishment should follow suit.

Matthew 18:6

?If anyone causes one of these little ones?those who believe in me?to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."

It is clear they aren't trying to recruit people into their church but rather spread a message of hate, so I think we know what must be done. We just need some millstones and some rope.

 

[ADDLibrarian]

The fact that they use "church" in their name is a misnomer- they're not a religion- they're a crazy inbred cult of lawyers who piss people off, then sue them if they try to infringe on their "first amendment rights". It's how they survive. I know I'm not supposed to "feed the trolls" but I'm a fan of karma and schadenfreude as much as the next person and just want to see these nutballs be brought to justice. At the very least, stop them from propagating for a bit and passing their crap onto their inbred children. Fred P. won't be getting it on much in prison- well, not in the way HE wants to anyway.

 

[hooblabla6262]

Holding signs on the other side of the street =/= Crazy people mocking and celebrating the recent death of your school age child. My entire argument is that we should have the ability to distinguish which is ok and which is crossing the line. I admit majority consensus can lead to problems, but unlike you I have enough faith in humanity and its intelligence to think maybe they won't fuck it up.

Since this isn't going to go anywhere I will bid you a good day.

but we dont. humans dont have such ability, because humans are not objective. and therefore we cannot set a line for "ok". if we do, we are bad people. not that this stopped us before. holding signs can be = people mocking and delebrating death (age has no factor). WBC proven that.
Your subjective opinion may be that humanity is intelligent, but that only gives example to my point.

I get that you are playing devils advocate, and trying very hard to get your point across. Good on ya, cause someone should and it isn't always an easy job. That being said, the post above makes you sound like a cold-hearted something or other.

Humans are very emotional creatures. Death is a sensitive subject, especially for those who recently lost someone. To go out of your way to antagonize these people in mourning is wrong, and any group who would do this should be labeled a hate group. Any group that has a website ihatefags.com should be labeled a hate group. For goodness sake, it's in the name!

If it were possible, I'd say we should get rid of religion all together. Seeing as that is not within the current realm of possibility, I'll stick with labeling the hate groups for what they are. Not because we are a majority and them the minority. Not because they believe something different than we. But because they spread hate. Simple as that.

And before you get in to the whole freedom of speech, I should say something. I do not believe in freedom of speech. Fascism for the win!
Now who's the devils advocate?

i am a cold hearted "insert your mockery here". and i am playind devils advocate. and its nice that some people realize importance of that. after all escapist forum constantly shells out "We need different opinions here" and then hunt you with a stick when you have one.

Humans are very emotional creatures. that is bad. labeling as a hate group would be fine if that was all it was - a label. but its not. its a social comdemnation.

Facism is very effective i can give you that. but freedom of speech has lead to many great things, from abolishment of slavery to gay rights, and to ignore that is foolish.

Ah, but this group goes around condemning people all day long. Would it not be a fair punishment to do the same to them. Labelling them a hate group might not be able to stop them from antagonizing the undeserving, but it sends a message that we think they are wrong and all a bunch of awful people.

And if you were to ask me, I would say that those changes were more brought about by emotional empathy by those with the force to change things than by freedom of speech. Considering most oppressed groups had very limited rights and freedoms.

 

[Strazdas]

snip

Ah, but this group goes around condemning people all day long. Would it not be a fair punishment to do the same to them. Labelling them a hate group might not be able to stop them from antagonizing the undeserving, but it sends a message that we think they are wrong and all a bunch of awful people.

And if you were to ask me, I would say that those changes were more brought about by emotional empathy by those with the force to change things than by freedom of speech. Considering most oppressed groups had very limited rights and freedoms.

so, being like them and condemning them is fair now? reminds me of kindergarden "he started first". considering most opressed groups had very limited rights and freedoms.... reminds you of something, oh yeah, exactly what you want to limit WBC.....

 

[hooblabla6262]

snip

Ah, but this group goes around condemning people all day long. Would it not be a fair punishment to do the same to them. Labelling them a hate group might not be able to stop them from antagonizing the undeserving, but it sends a message that we think they are wrong and all a bunch of awful people.

And if you were to ask me, I would say that those changes were more brought about by emotional empathy by those with the force to change things than by freedom of speech. Considering most oppressed groups had very limited rights and freedoms.

so, being like them and condemning them is fair now? reminds me of kindergarden "he started first". considering most opressed groups had very limited rights and freedoms.... reminds you of something, oh yeah, exactly what you want to limit WBC.....

Yes, I would call that fair. I am a strong believer that if someone hits you repeatedly without provocation or legitimate reason, you should smack them right back.
Not so much a matter of who started it, but what has been started and why. If you were in kindergarten and you saw another kid harassing someone, do you A. Defend their right to harass or B. Report their ass to the authority for proper beatings.
Stop tolerating intolerance.

 

[Vegosiux]

so, being like them and condemning them is fair now? reminds me of kindergarden "he started first". considering most opressed groups had very limited rights and freedoms.... reminds you of something, oh yeah, exactly what you want to limit WBC.....

Oh boy, two in one day...

If you make it a point to take every argument to their logical extreme without regard for its context, and there's an expression for that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man], two can play that game.

I suppose we should just abolish all kind of defamation lawsuits them, too. I mean what is a defamation lawsuit? You asking one of the government branches to punish someone who you believe has wronged you in speech. For example, if someone maliciously starts spreading rumors that you're sexually abusing your daughter, you're well within your right to press charges, are you not?

Well, yes, luckily, because we don't have you interpreting the laws. With "logic", which seems to be taking things to their logical extreme without regard for anything, then you should let them continue spreading those rumors as they please.

Oh and if we argue "freedom of speech" as "can say anything without consequence", then lies and slander are covered under that, so you must support people's right to lie, including malicious lies meant to hurt one's standing in society. You must oppose the oath to tell the truth in court because that restricts one's right to free speech.

As I said. Two can play that game. It doesn't actually take any particular intelligence and craftiness.

Now please tell me how your logic is "completely different" and how I've "taken your posts out of context".

 

[MrCollins]

What does them being officially being called a hate group actually entail?
How would it affect their daily lives and "religious" (by which I mean hateful) activities?

Would it only allow the police to remove them from the premises of the funeral? Or would it allow them to be arrested?
How much does being classified a hate group affect your free speech both legally and practically?

These are not rhetorical questions, and I would be very appreciative of an answer.

 

[UltraXan]

I may be Canadian, but damn, I have a strong opinion on the WBC. When you go around, picketing funerals and other charitable events, holding signs that say "God hates fags" and "Thank God for dead soldiers" and "Thank God for 9/11," then they deserve a collective slap upside the head. I'm an Atheist, a damn proud one, but I don't care what people believe. I honestly don't. It's when people like the WBC start getting their religious shit in other people's faces that I have a problem with it. When you start going out of your way to shove your shit down my throat, make other people feel bad, and try as hard as possible to demean other people and use religion and freedom of speech to try and get away with it, that's when I put my foot down. That's when I say "fuck it, we need to get these mother fuckers back in line."

 

[Charli]

What does them being officially being called a hate group actually entail?
How would it affect their daily lives and "religious" (by which I mean hateful) activities?

Would it only allow the police to remove them from the premises of the funeral? Or would it allow them to be arrested?
How much does being classified a hate group affect your free speech both legally and practically?

These are not rhetorical questions, and I would be very appreciative of an answer.

Being a recognized religion gives you some tax breaks in the U.S.

Basically stripping them of this would remove that and make spreading their message harder.

Which I am all for.

It wouldn't do anything to their 'human rights' nor prevent them from doing what they are going to do. So all the bile above you is pointless 'but if's'. The KKK is a hate group. They still exist, they still continue their practices. This would simply put the WBC on the same playing field.

 

[MrCollins]

What does them being officially being called a hate group actually entail?
How would it affect their daily lives and "religious" (by which I mean hateful) activities?

Would it only allow the police to remove them from the premises of the funeral? Or would it allow them to be arrested?
How much does being classified a hate group affect your free speech both legally and practically?

These are not rhetorical questions, and I would be very appreciative of an answer.

Being a recognized religion gives you some tax breaks in the U.S.

Basically stripping them of this would remove that and make spreading their message harder.

Which I am all for.

It wouldn't do anything to their 'human rights' nor prevent them from doing what they are going to do. So all the bile above you is pointless 'but if's'. The KKK is a hate group. They still exist, they still continue their practices. This would simply put the WBC on the same playing field.

Well if the case is to simply remove their tax exempt status, then I can see no reason not to label them a hate group. I can't see where there is an issue of the first amendment that comes into play as their speech is not being infringed, they just can't do it on the government dime. Churches have tax-exempt status because they are charities (at least, that's the reasoning I've been told applies), and this "church" isn't.
This is a complete non-issue for me now that's been cleared up, thanks.

 

[Dr. Thrax]

Well if the case is to simply remove their tax exempt status, then I can see no reason not to label them a hate group. I can't see where there is an issue of the first amendment that comes into play as their speech is not being infringed, they just can't do it on the government dime. Churches have tax-exempt status because they are charities (at least, that's the reasoning I've been told applies), and this "church" isn't.
This is a complete non-issue for me now that's been cleared up, thanks.

The big issue here is that most - if not all - of the Phelps clan are lawyers, they not only ride on the Bible Train, they ride the "I'll Sue Your Ass For Everything You Own" Train. Another part of it being that nobody that has the authority to remove their tax-exempt status, would, unless they (The WBC) perform some despicable act. As despicable as using the funerals of the deceased to spread their messages of intolerance and hate is, since the Supreme Court has ruled in their favor, coupled with the fact that they all make sure to obey every law when it comes to picketing, means that unless one of them goes out and shoots up a mall specifically for their belief and their church, it ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

 

[asinann]

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?

Then we have differing opinions. I would continue this conversation, but I have a feeling it would turn sour.

Listing them as a hate group doesn't prohibit their existence. The KKK is a hate group, they exist publicly and have rallies and protests. This just makes it so the government will be at their protests and they won't be able to sue people for things like defamation (which is what they do constantly.)

 

[Simalacrum]

See, I can see why a lot of people are wanting this organisation to be banned. And I can understand that! They are certainly vile, in many ways.

However, I don't think its the right way to go.

To ban WBC could have more dire consequences than what people may realise; in legal terms, it could set a precedent which could negatively affect other organisations.

Take Britain, for example, my own home country (though I'm now stationed in Japan): here, the WBC has been banned for its offensive actions, under the Public Order Act; essentially, they're not allowed in the country, plain and simple.

The problem there is, the same law is under significant controversy, as it has also been used previously to suppress various protests, including that of gay rights protests (a hint of irony there).

People need to remember that, while the WBC are incredibly offensive, they also have a strict policy on non-violence; they're pacifists in a weird and twisted way. So long as they don't hurt people, I think we need to think very, very carefully about the consequences of any act of banning such an organisation.

 

[Vegosiux]

People need to remember that, while the WBC are incredibly offensive, they also have a strict policy on non-violence; they're pacifists in a weird and twisted way. So long as they don't hurt people, I think we need to think very, very carefully about the consequences of any act of banning such an organisation.

Maybe the term "violence" needs to be redefined to include not only things that cause physical harm

 

[Charli]

@Simalacrum

You are not getting the point of this petition. The goal is not to ban them. It is to RECLASSIFY them.

They can continue spewing their hatred all they want. But the U.S. don't want them to be listed as recognized religion.

I'm from the UK as well, would you want the British Nationalist party or Islam extremists to get (well more than they get) tax breaks for simply calling themselves a religion while on the side using that money to do morally questionable activities that infringe on other peoples rights to a peaceful funeral or party or whatever have you?

...Can't say I would. If I couldn't outright stop them I'd at least like a stop to their funding straight from my own pocket (technically). Religion should be kept to yourself and your Church. And yes I dislike what the Catholic, Islamic and Other such Churches do on such matters as well, but one problem at a time, and these guys are all about hatred, with not much in the way of a counter balance.

 

[Aikayai]

Can't believe more than 300,000 people want to rename a few trolls while NASA will miss out on its petition to get its budget doubled and save the agency's credibility to the military. Now that sickens me.