Westboro Church Group.

[Ghel]

I don't recall seeing any of the WBC's signs advocate action by any human being. "Thank God for dead soldiers" is not a call to action. In that sense, I don't see how it can be viewed as treason.

On the harassment front, I've heard that WBC makes sure to follow local, state, and national laws regarding when and where they can stage their protests. Although we may view it as harassment, from a legal standpoint it is not.

[Andara Bledin]

Freedom of speech is a consitutional right. Harrassment is not. And I'm not sure where the line is between free speech and harrassment.

The law sometimes has trouble deciding that, as well.

As it stands, they generally have to keep a certain distance from what they're protesting, but not so much distance as to make their protest completely irrelevant.

Personally, I'd just as soon have a few of these over-the-top whack-a-loons out there shining an unflinching light on just how ugly bigotry is.

^-.-^

[Skunkle]

When things really hurt me emotionally in an overpowering way, I actually feel physical pain. I can count on one hand the things in my entire life that have done this. The Phelps group is on the list. I am Christian, and the God in which I put my Faith does NOT support this kind of hatred and anger... Against men who died? I am not supportive of war, but still, these men died in the name of our country. Thousands and thousands of them, sadly. Free speech is indeed protective of even the opinions any one person disagrees with, and the problem inherent in being human is these lines which it's nearly impossible to stay on the "right" side of; despite the fact that supporting free speech means I must support their right to say these things, I cannot support their right to say these things at funerals. If one of the Westboro people dies, I won't be outside their funeral, doing some sort of happy dance; it isn't respectful when they do it, nor would it be if I did it to them!

Phelps really has his Ts crossed and Is dotted here. He has training as a lawyer, and whether he is or isn't any longer, he used to be (he would threaten his childrens' schools with his powers when they moved to go after him upon seeing his abused children). He checks his laws and statutes regarding what he can do, where. But he's finding less and less tolerance of his views and his protests.

Yes, as noted, he abuses his family - heavy and harsh physical abuse. My best guess is that this is an offshoot of his particular sect or splinter sect of Christian religion, which in my opinion stands to help explain how he thinks the way he does: Westboro's 'thing' is an extremely extremist version of Calvinism, the line concocted by John Calvin involving predestination. The basic idea is that people are selected by God before birth to be saved or fallen; if you're fallen from birth, nothing you can do can ever save you. Vice versa, too; if you're saved, nothing you do can cause you to fall from grace. Taken to his extremes, this means that the born-to-be-saved can do no wrong but, further, being essentially God's elect and chosen, are thus supported by God in condemning the fallen and their sins. I'm not honestly certain whether Phelps himself really believes this, or whether he knows he's doing wrong and using others to support his power.

While I wholly believe that condemning others is wrong, I also admit that I fall prey to my own sins, being human, and thinking judgmental thoughts about others does happen. I feel the least guilty doing this about Phelps; if there is any man on earth I can imagine who is not simply insane (for example, I think Kim Jong-Il and Saddam Hussein are/were simply insane and power-mad) but actually stands a good chance of being literally controlled by evil forces - I'm not certain on my beliefs about WHAT the evil force IS (since Satan isn't really described in the Bible as he seems to be thought of today) but I do believe that Phelps is, knowingly or not, actively doing evil.

There used to be (sadly gone now) a parody site, God hates figs.

Oh, and... While I don't recommend reading the Westboro site, especially the Matthew Shepard page, unless you want to cry really, really hard, there's a photo of him on the site, standing at a podium, wearing a jet-black suit and a fairly straight facial expression, that gives me the jibblies somethin' awful. I mean, Phelps always creeps me out, but that one image somehow just feels nasty.

Oh, and in case readers haven't seen my other comments on appropriate threads, I am gay - well, bi, really - and am attached to a boyfriend of five years, with whom I can see myself staying for a long time. I'm Christian, not really sticking to any one denomination as the "one true church". If/when I attend services, I go to St. Mark's, the Episcopal Cathedral in Seattle. And I highly recommend this as a place to go if you're gay/bi/straight-and-supporting, and want to attend a Christian church who stands by you in this. The pastor there is gay, and I was at his swearing-in ceremony (can't remember what they call it) listening to Desmond Tutu speak - a very powerful moment - while a few Phelps-ites were protesting outside; at least, I'm told they were, because I never saw them.

[Hyena Dandy]

Oh, and in case readers haven't seen my other comments on appropriate threads, I am gay - well, bi, really - and am attached to a boyfriend of five years, with whom I can see myself staying for a long time. I'm Christian, not really sticking to any one denomination as the "one true church". If/when I attend services, I go to St. Mark's, the Episcopal Cathedral in Seattle. And I highly recommend this as a place to go if you're gay/bi/straight-and-supporting, and want to attend a Christian church who stands by you in this. The pastor there is gay, and I was at his swearing-in ceremony (can't remember what they call it) listening to Desmond Tutu speak - a very powerful moment - while a few Phelps-ites were protesting outside; at least, I'm told they were, because I never saw them.

Whooo, gay Christian five!

[Skunkle]

Gay Christian FURRY five! "Skunkle" is my only-semi-furry name here - I'm Zephyr Skunk over on FA.

Been reading your posts on CS for a while and wishing I could jump in and chat off-topic, but...

[Ipecac Drano]

I am Christian, and the God in which I put my Faith does NOT support this kind of hatred and anger...

Sometimes he does and sometimes he doesn't. In some parts of the Bible, God deplores certain kinds of people and prescribes all kinds of nastiness and even death for them. In other parts of the Bible, he says to love those who trespass, no matter the offense.

Against men who died?

Per Phelps, against men who died defending homosexuality. But, in shorthand, against all soldiers. The man has logic issues.

[protege]

Protesting is one thing. Celebrating and advocating the deaths of U.S. soldiers abroad and at home crosses the line from protesting to treason, at least to me.

Still not buying it. How is exercising one's freedom of speech, even though I don't agree with what the WBC is spewing, equal to treason? Freedom of speech also applies to speech that we don't agree with. Double-edged sword, that is.

These people DIED to protect your right to say what you say and you piss on their sacrifice, make their families suffer even more, and spit in the face of everything they've done to protect you?

Uh, where have I done this? Find me *one* post I've made that I haven't been supporting our troops. Oh, and several of my relatives have served, and a couple are still in.

Fuck you. That's treason to me.

"Fuck me?" Sorry, but I don't go for people who can't look up words in the dictionary. Speaking of which, Merriam-Webster's online dictionary defines treason as:

1: the betrayal of a trust : treachery
2: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family

Where have the WBC done *any* of that? All they've done, is (again) executed their freedom of speech. Again, that freedom, applies to speech that not everyone agrees with. To say otherwise, amounts to censorship...and is one step down the road towards a dictatorship.

If I was in charge they would have been executed LONG ago.

...and that's why we have freedom of speech in the first place.

Apologies if I offended anyone, but since my brother's in the military, this hits home for me a lot more than it did five years ago.

Tell him that we appreciate what he's doing.

[Andara Bledin]

Uh, where have I done this? ....

I'm pretty sure that one and the next comment you quoted are directed at WBC, not you.

^-.-^

[Skunkle]

I think Andara is correct. Love your quote, Andara.

I support their right to say what they want. But my thoughts are that while I support everyone's right to free speech, there are venues which are appropriate. There are venues which are not; funerals and schools are two that are not. In the latter case, they obviously don't care if children see their graphic messages. In the former, they're *trying* to make people angry; they WANT to start riots. They're in the school of "there is no such thing as bad publicity, there is only publicity".

Yes, Ipecac, the Bible does change messages in places... but I don't accept the Bible as one solid text, written in literal terms and assembled, as we read it today, exactly as God intends. First of all, everything in the Bible has been filtered though imperfect and, thus, biased human minds, hands and mouths, often multiple times. Some of these have been translations, and I don't think scholars always necessarily choose the best word of one language to match a word of the old without personal bias or opinion affecting which they "think God probably intended".

It is also not complete; the Catholic church, a very long time ago, has picked and chosen which texts, which gospels, were in and out. I don't know why some were deemed appropriate and some were not, but not all texts of "prophets" got in.

Next, look at sections such as Leviticus: It seems clear to me that what's written there are not God's proclamations so much as they are common laws of the time. The thinking may have run "We are Godly people. These are our common laws. Thus, by proxy, these must be God's laws." For reasons no Christian I've met who considers Leviticus damning evidence that God abhors homosexuality has been able to explain to me, they accept that "a man may not lay with a man as he lays with a woman; it is an abomination" and yet we accept that stoning to death (or killing in any way) for some transgressions listed such as disobeying your parents, or things like wearing clothing made from mixed fibers or planting more than one type of crop in a single field, are abominations; we don't follow many of these, and yet some want to follow that one? The only person I've asked who gave any sort of explanation as to why we follow that one and not the others said, "The others just don't apply any more". Who says they don't? Who says they all DO apply? If they don't, what changed them and not that one?

Last but not least, I accept that much of the Bible is put into the format of parables and fictional stories; I don't think it all literally happened as written. Even things not noted therein as parables,. I think, may have been written with the intention of teaching people of that time through working examples, rather than recording actual and factual events exactly as they occurred. For example, I don't think God created the earth in seven calendar days; yes, it could easily have taken such a short time, but I don't think it necessarily was exactly as written; I believe it was separated thus, again,. to separate the process in the retelling as a story about Creation, and thus placed in terms of days, a concept the writer knew people could understand and grasp.

There are but a handful of passages in the Bible discussing what sounds like homosexuality, and there are among and around them many others dealing with all manner of other sins; Leviticus alone lists many, many things as abominations unto God. Why, then, is this one supposed sin taken as the prime sin above all others by Phelps and crew? My opinion: THEY hate it above all others, and if they are God's predestined chosen (there's that extremist Calvinism bit again) that must mean it is God's cardinal sin...despite not being mentioned in the Commandments - any of them, far as I've seen. One of my local friends grew up going to a church whose pastor told him that "gay" and "homosexuality" were, as such, specifically mentioned in the Bible; I'll pay $500 right now to anyone who can pick up a normal (let's say, King James) Bible and find any mention of "gay" people (meaning homosexuals) or "homosexuality". Now, Schlafly's Conservapedia idea about doing a re-translation with a 'proper' Conservative bent? I'm sure it'll be in there; they've already mentioned the 'need' in the rewrite to describe hell in the modern-day-accepted ways rather than the way it is already described therein.

Do I think homosexuality is condemned? No. Not a monogamous, loving relationship between any two consenting people. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm not, but I don't think I'll know that nebulous "the truth" until I have passed on and am meeting my God or His representative in whatever physical or metaphysical way it happens.

I take anything I hear from Westboro's people with that caveat: In my opinion, they can and will believe that anything they believe must automatically be God's will because they are His chosen saved. Do I think they're his "Chosen"? No. Do I think they're all fallen? No. I still believe that Faith saves - anyone and everyone. No matter what. But I also don't believe it is my right to pass judgment upon anyone else for their sins; I believe my sins are ALL I have to worry about. No one else has the right to judge me, nor have I the right to call anyone else. I refuse to accept that Phelps can call my sins, tell me what they are, or anything like that.

My opinion of God, above all other ideas I may have: God is about love. He loves us. He hates sins, but this does not mean He hates us. I shy away from any pastor or religious leader, though, who tells me what my sins are. That's not his or her job or duty, nor does God, in my opinion, delegate this ability to any person on earth. We are not granted the rights to judge in His name, to persecute in His name, or to kill in His name. And Westboro seem pretty darned clear about the idea that *murdering* homosexuals would be acceptable. THAT alone tells me they're not who and what they say they are. Anyone who says "God HATES you" is not someone I believe; anyone who kills/murders in God's name or advocates this is definitely not doing God's work.

[derangedperson]

Apologies, protege. That post I made was in NO way directed at you. Sorry if you took it the wrong way. I was just in a foul mood when I wrote that, and I could have worded it better.

Either way, the old adage rings true:

The people who scream about God the loudest are the ones who hear Him the least.

[Ipecac Drano]

Yes, Ipecac, the Bible does change messages in places... but I don't accept the Bible as one solid text, written in literal terms and assembled, as we read it today, exactly as God intends.

Which defeats the purpose of having it, for the Xtians that is.

First of all, everything in the Bible has been filtered though imperfect and, thus, biased human minds, hands and mouths, often multiple times. Some of these have been translations, and I don't think scholars always necessarily choose the best word of one language to match a word of the old without personal bias or opinion affecting which they "think God probably intended".

True, all that, but the difference between "Burn the city and all its inhabitants to the ground" and "Love thy enemies" isn't just 1°; it's 180°.

It is also not complete; the Catholic church, a very long time ago, has picked and chosen which texts, which gospels, were in and out. I don't know why some were deemed appropriate and some were not, but not all texts of "prophets" got in.

The editing started before the Catholics got their hands on it and King James did some more snipping. As for it "not being complete", people are still adding their own things to it; e.g., the Latter Day Saints with their Book of Mormon ("A new testament of Jesus Christ.").

Last but not least, I accept that much of the Bible is put into the format of parables and fictional stories; I don't think it all literally happened as written. Even things not noted therein as parables,. I think, may have been written with the intention of teaching people of that time through working examples, rather than recording actual and factual events exactly as they occurred. For example, I don't think God created the earth in seven calendar days; yes, it could easily have taken such a short time, but I don't think it necessarily was exactly as written; I believe it was separated thus, again,. to separate the process in the retelling as a story about Creation, and thus placed in terms of days, a concept the writer knew people could understand and grasp.

But keep in mind that back in those days, those people didn't know that much about the world. The soon-to-be Xtians thought that the world was on columns.

All I can say is that there is a huge paradox in editing the Bible: on one hand, there are parts that shouldn't be there, such as commanding the people to destroy cities and then telling them to love their enemies (nevermind that God is going to do the destruction himself); and on the other hand, they're cutting out things that their GOD is saying. I guess there is no better way to tell God that one loves him by interrupting him and/or just ignoring some of the things he says.

[Skunkle]

Which is why I think many books of it are indeed things people put in, assuming that because THEY thought these things were right, and THEY thought THEY were Godly people or even God's chosen people, this must mean that these things were by proxy God's word, rules, laws and whatnot. The Bible is a book with some very useful stories and lessons in the ways of living a good, just life. That isn't to say the whole thing is correct, and I think it gets heavily abused; it isn't an automatic argument-winner or a weapon to destroy your enemies (unless you get a really big one and hit people with it, in which case it might function as both reasonably well).

I really hate to say "I'm a Christian, but I swear I'm not like the crazy Christians", but I have to. And it's the truth. I feel sad inside every time someone uses their religion as a weapon or as a crutch, but unfortunately, both are very common. There is, I feel somewhat sad to say, nothing I can do to fix the image...

...or is there? What I can do is try to be the Christian I want to have as an example. Downside: I'm human, I still screw up and commit sins. Upside: I screw up and commit sins, and I can and do admit that. I'm not perfect, and I can't be. No Christian is; being saved doesn't mean you suddenly lose the problem of doing or saying bad things, and everyone screws up sometimes, sometimes in big ways. And that's the message as I put it: I'm a Christian and I'm still on the same level as everyone else, privy to the same merits and the same faults.

The gist I get from Phelps' stuff is that he acts as though he cannot commit a sin... and I understand that to be an interpretation one could have from the Calvinist system: if you are predestined from birth to be saved, and cannot change your fate, by definition you cannot sin; the Christian call is that we as humans are born sinners, and this preempts that by saying that some are saved before birth. Some Christians say you're fallen, but you can be saved by doing good works in God's name; other Christians say you're fallen, but you can be saved by accepting Jesus as your Saviour. In this case, it seems, you're born fallen and you CANNOT be saved - if you're to be saved, you'll be saved from birth, and you'll KNOW it. In the Westboro format, this has been taken to mean that the predestined saved not only CAN do anything they want (probably including killing) and not fall, but that, being saved by predestination and thus, essentially, God's chosen people, any acts you commit against the fallen are basically God working through you!

...okay, I gotta stop now... This makes me feel sad. I simply cannot believe my Lord condones this.

[Ipecac Drano]

All I can say is follow your heart on this (as long as you don't harm someone else). I got tired of trying to sort out what was divine and what was just human and abandoned it all. You sound like you have more patience for this than I had. Good luck, bro.

[Skunkle]

Thanks... That's what I try to do. I know I may not get everything right, but that's still just a part of being human.

As far as I see, the only reason average people v(not leaders of churches) go off on this kind of ideal - that some people deserve only to die - are riding a power trip. Enjoying "knowing" they're up and you're down. Phelps is, I don't doubt, also on a power trip, but he actually has people under his control.

Also: I refuse to believe, I CAN'T believe, what Phelps claims about God laughing when people die. Is anyone here brave enough to read their website (I tried years ago, didn't get far) and find out what they claim as proof that homosexuality is a sin above other sins? A handful of Bible passages don't cut it for me, when far more passages mention other sins; unless they're taking Sodom and Gomorrah as proof? I'm not convinced of that one; I figure that was more about promiscuity than homosexuality, but I could be wrong.

As to the Book of Mormom, I'm not really sure on that one. From what little I gathered talking to some LDS people, the idea there is that in the so-called "missing years" of Jesus, he visited the American continent by some sort of divine ability and preached to civilizations here (Incan or Mayan or somesuch), who took his lessons but understood them in different ways. I'm not sure if that's what's in the Book of Mormon, but I assume it's another book of writings of prophets. If it IS, I'd say the anti-Mormon sentiment on that level might just be "Our prophets were genuine, yours were false" (which doesn't take into account why WE left the writings of certain prophets out of OUR Bible). I also hear crazy stories of Mormons, mainly related to that bizarre 80s Mormon animated film about children of the stars on another planet making heavenly babies or somesuch, and on the forum where I found that, half the responses were "I've been Mormon for years and this is totally bullshit" and half were "I was Mormon for years and this is completely true!" With such an even split, it's useless at giving any hints.

[Mytical]

Though I am still waiting for a religion to explain why theirs is right and others wrong (without saying because this person or this book said so), and answer all my questions to my liking..I can say this...

95% of all the Christians I have ever talked to are rational, reasonable human beings with good hearts. Unfortunately the 5% are the ones that get the press and attention. It's like at a restaurant. Do you notice the 15 kids being nice and behaved..or the 2 that are screaming/yelling etc? Sadly, people pay more attention to the 2.

I may not believe as they believe, but I respect their right to believe as they want to believe. My nature is that I question everything, even question the questioning of everything..but that is my issue..not theirs .

As for Phelps and his gang? They are the 2 children in the restaurant. They just want attention, good or bad doesn't matter.