Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Founder of Anti-Gay Westboro Baptist Church Dies

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    But presumably there would be a loophole, inasmuch as it would be safe to say that someone is in hell, provided it's for the crime of judging.

    Anyway, we don't need to go on and on about hell. It's a bit of a downer.

    Comment


    • #47
      I have a friend who has a son who is HIV+. This friend is almost 70, and all his children are grown, even some of his grandchildren are almost adults. He said if he outlived his son, and Phelps showed up at the funeral, he would punch the guy's lights out, and if he ended up in prison, so what? I told him I'd visit him, and I meant it, because I'm pretty sure he meant it, and he's an ex-Marine in good shape for a guy almost 70.

      Happily, though, I can report that his son responds well to medication, and has an undetectable viral load, a supportive partner, takes great care of himself, and hasn't even had a cold in a long time.

      Comment


      • #48
        Though I would like to see Phelps' funeral garner some protesters, with the burning in Hell thing I was just relating what Dennis Miller said on his radio show because I thought it went far to illustrate the strong emotions the whole thing stirs up in people. My own spiritual beliefs actually don't lean that way.

        Comment


        • #49
          Yes Kensei, I wasn't having a dig at you. It's just that, whenever I hear people talking about hell, I get an image of someone impotently shaking their fist and screaming "I didn't have the ability/luck/guts to get you in life, but I'll bloody well get you in the afterlife" and it all seems a bit undignified, although I can well understand how some people can feel this way, and I am not making a point against hatred. Hatred as such isn't evil. It depends on who is hated, and why. It's quite OK in my book to hate Ian Brady, for example, and to give him hell - in the here and now.

          Comment


          • #50
            the US supreme court could have interpreted the law in favor of those opposing Westoro church. There hands weren't tied. Its why the case was before them in the first place and why some of the judges voted against phelps church. Its not cut and dry as some posters on here are claiming that they HAD to rule in favor of Westboro.

            Freedom of speech does not mean you can say anything you want where ever you want. For instance the judges could have ruled that westboro was violating the right to privacy, and or was causing psychological damage, disturbing the peace, whatever.

            The supreme court justices who ruled in favor of westboro pussed out.
            "Is all that we see or seem
            but a dream within a dream?"

            -Edgar Allan Poe


            "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
            quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

            -Frederick G. Abberline

            Comment


            • #51
              The case that went in front of the Supreme Court ruled as to whether the family members of the deceased whose funeral was picketed could sue Westboro for monetary damages. The court ruled they could not.

              Anyway, I saw about a dozen of them out on the sidewalk with their signs yesterday, so life goes on.

              JM

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by jmenges View Post
                The case that went in front of the Supreme Court ruled as to whether the family members of the deceased whose funeral was picketed could sue Westboro for monetary damages. The court ruled they could not.

                Anyway, I saw about a dozen of them out on the sidewalk with their signs yesterday, so life goes on.

                JM
                Hi JM
                Thanks for the details. But some of the justices ruled that they could sue,No?
                the majority ruled that they could not. so the minority who ruled that they could sue were Legally justified in there decision, they just didn't win the day. IMHO because the majority would not take a stand-they punted. sad.
                "Is all that we see or seem
                but a dream within a dream?"

                -Edgar Allan Poe


                "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                -Frederick G. Abberline

                Comment


                • #53
                  Hi Abby,

                  You said "Freedom of speech does not mean you can say anything you want where ever you want. For instance the judges could have ruled that westboro was violating the right to privacy, and or was causing psychological damage, disturbing the peace, whatever."

                  The issues in front of the court were:

                  Whether the prohibition of awarding damages to public figures to compensate for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, under the Supreme Court’s First Amendment precedents, applies to a case involving two private persons regarding a private matter;

                  Whether the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment trumps its freedom of religion and peaceful assembly; and

                  Whether an individual attending a family member’s funeral constitutes a "captive audience" who is entitled to state protection from unwanted communication.

                  The court ruled 8-1 when siding with Westboro and I happen to think that the court made the right decision.

                  JM

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    The putrid Westboro Church bottled out of protesting at Jeff Hanneman's (guitarist with heavy metal band Slayer) funeral probably because they would have been in serious risk of getting their sorry asses beaten.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X