Extremism at its finest.

Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church

After having been forced to watch a variety of video (for a research project that I am helping a friend with) of Fred Phelps and his congregation foment ideas, slogans and banners denoting phrases such as "Thank God for 9/11", "God hates fags," "AIDS cures fags," and "Fags die, God laughs (or mocks)," and claims that God will punish homosexuals. This stuff is utterly debase of any human value that I can detect.

Rev. Phelps has been quoted or attributed as saying

"America is doomed and cursed by God irreversibly".

"1.07 billion members of that monstrous machine called the Roman Catholic Church. Every last one of them going to hell".

"This is the hypocritical, fag-infested, fag-run United States of America and we're supposed to respect that fag rag flag?"

"Everyone who is not me is a Satan-worshipping Fag enabler!"

"The Lord God Almighty killed [the people who died on 9/11], looked at them in the face, laughed and mocked at each one of them as he cast each one of them into hell."

-----

Phelps and his followers have over the last recent years, protested at many soldier funerals with banners and signs of "Thank God for 9/11" and "Thank God for Dead Soldiers". To what end does such Christian Extremism achieve? For whom, and why? Is this kind of Extremism necessary?

Example Video:
YouTube - Evil Reverend Fred Phelps Diatribe Against Stewart/Colbert
YouTube - Fred Phelps supporter on Hannity & Colmes
YouTube - Fred Phelps' scary granddaughters
YouTube - Fred Phelps Jr.'s Comeuppance
YouTube - Fred Phelps gets heckled 2004 DNC Boston

External Links
God Hates America -- Westboro Baptist Church Commentary on the USA
WARNING PAGE

Many fundamentalist Christians hate the roman catholic church simply because catholics believe in evolution or some even just because it is so "popular" (in the sense of wide spread).

I'm not sure how there's even a contest between "good and bad". Seems to me that they're just using religion to justify their homophobia. Unfortunately, I can't check out the link, because "The Websense category "Racism and Hate" is filtered."

sounds to me like he has an obseseive fixation on gay sex. He seems scared.

The title of this thread is Christian Extremism: Good or Bad? But the OP doesn't really address the issue.

Obviously, Fred Phelps is a thorn in the side of everyone who respects individual rights. He is a power-hungry fascist with the intent of brainwashing his congregation against homosexuals and a number of other groups. In this sense, he is bad.

However, he also, like it or not, has a right to do this. I personally do not fell that someone who is outright declaring hate for another group based on prejudice and lies should be allowed to speak publicly. But, I must respect his right to do so under the Constitution. So, if this shows us anything, it is that the Freedoms of speech and expression are still alive and well, and in that roundabout sense, it's good.

I would personally like to see Phelps and his crew shipped off somewhere else, somewhere he's not free to speak. Perhaps a place where if he spoke so freely about the government he'd be shot. At least then he'd know how lucky he is to live in such a "fag-enabling" country.

I try to hold a certain concept of thought in my life. Recently I sat down and read Dawkins book, The God Delusion. The most striking of statement in it being "Religious moderates make the world safe for fundamentalists, by promoting faith as a virtue and by enforcing an overly pious respect for religion." As such Christian Extremists fall very clear into this category. I dont believe that Phelps and his ilk should be allowed to express such treasonous and unpatriotic notions (totally aside from their already outlandish Faith aspects towards Gays, Judaica, or any other likewise group that doesnt fall under their halo) in the ways they do. So my question was, why let them?

freedom of expression and thought does apply for arseholes too

Who should draw the line?

I agree with Brian's assessment: it's the constitutional right to free speech that allows them to do this (just ask PWill).

I understand the right to freedom of speech, but is there a line that eventually gets crossed?

I agree with you in that I would prefer it if he and his crew would stop showing up at funerals and booing dead soldiers, etc. However, we cannot tell Phelps et. al that they can't express their views, as if we do, what makes us any better? Once we say that someone is not free to speak, whether what they're saying is "treasonous and unpatriotic" or not, we become the arbiter of what is acceptable speech. That would make us fascists.

As to religious moderates paving the way for extremists, I do agree. However, I am not in any way a religious man, and as a result my views are very different from those of religious people. To me, everyone who asserts religious belief as fact and piousness and faith as virtues is a little delusional. But, each and every one of them is protected under the Freedom of religion. Thus, short of banning all religions (and the Freedom thereof), it would be impossible to censure Phelps and his followers.

treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation. A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy.

One could view the actions taken by Phelps in regards to Saddam Hussein as treasonous in nature (depending on your view I suppose),

"In 2003, before the fall of Saddam Hussein during the Iraq War, Phelps wrote Hussein a letter praising his regime for being, in his opinion, "the only Muslim state that allows the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ to be freely and openly preached on the streets." Furthermore, he stated that he would like to send a delegation to Baghdad to "preach the Gospel" for one week. Hussein granted permission, and a group of WBC congregants traveled to Iraq to protest against the U.S. The WBC members stood on the streets of Baghdad holding signs condemning Bill and Hillary Clinton and anal sex.[44] After Saddam was hanged, Phelps released a video commentary that stated that both Saddam Hussein and Gerald Ford (who had died the same week) were now in Hell.

Link citing the letter written to Saddam:
http://www.adl.org/special_reports/w...on_america.asp

Link citing the protest in Iraq:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={91058469-F6DE-4615-8B2A-73CDF3E8FCAC}

It's more than Freedom of speech. It's the Freedom of expression, (peaceful) gathering, and religion as well.

The old rule used to be that one's Freedoms extended as far as the next person's began, and once infringed upon, the person whose Freedoms were being oppressed was right to react. Now, in an assessment of Phelps, we can see that:

He is speaking freely, without NOT allowing others to speak.
He is expressing his beliefs, without NOT allowing others to do the same.
His followers gather in the name of religion.
His demonstrations are "peaceful" in that his followers do not attack others with violence, but rather with hateful speech and slogans.

On realizing this, it should be apparent that he is (unfortunately) not infringing on anyone else's Freedoms, and thus will be immune to public attempts to censure him.

Sad, but true.

treason
–noun
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

Unfortunately, going to Iraq to condemn the Clinton's and anal sex does not violate his allegiance to the country. Praising Saddam for allowing the Bible to be preached in the streets does not do this either. His criticisms, although stupid and unfounded in most cases, are still protected. He just takes the liberties you and I take for granted to the extreme.

I think these extremists do more harm to Christianity than anything else.

I will say though, people always act like fundamentalists are nutty, but they are just being logically consistent. The Bible is homophobic in a few instances, and they are just taking it at it's word.

It very hard to argue a non-homophobic stance, if we assume the Bible is the infallible Word of God.

A relevant article is Some Elementary Comments on the Rights of Freedom of Expression by Noam Chomsky, a tiny snippet from it:
And here are some relevant bits from a speech made by Ron Paul concerning the Broadcast Indecency Act of 2004 entitled An Indecent Attack on the First Amendment, I sincerely recommend taking a few minutes to read the entire speech though:
You have to remember though that nobody has a right to free speech on private property, so the Phelps have no right to express their ideas on the funeral grounds for example if the owner does not wish them to do so.

EDIT: oh and here's a documentary concerning the Phelps family you might want to watch, Louis Theroux: The Most Hated Family in America (Louis gets to know the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas - a controversial church whose members are nearly all from one family.).

i think you should have the right to express any opinions or ideas without restrictions. you're crossing the line when you publish or broadcast false claims about an individual, iow slander and libel.

on a related note, two months ago we had a discussion about the ACLU and its role in defending the KKK :
Wanting opinions on ACLU

Phelps is a moron, and piece of filth. So are his trailor trash kool-aid drinking friends. As long as he stays within the law, he has a right to say what he wants, and I have a right to call him scum.

I don't think he makes Christians look bad because virtually everyone who claims that religion has wholeheartedly condemned him, his followers, and what they do.

And compiledkernal, I'm amazed you'd suggest he should be censored for treason on this forum. How about liberals who protest against America?

you mean "liberals who protest against the government or its policies" ?

Yeah, protesting against America like the God hates Fags guys do. And no, before you try to pigeon hole me, I'm not saying I think its unpatriotic to voice disagreement with the government.

As a "non American" I saw Louis Theroux's documentary on the Phelps. I found it quite appalling.

As an example this is an extract from the Irish Constitution

Article 40.6.1°, paragraph i of the Constitution provides that, subject to public order and morality, the State guarantees liberty for the exercise of- The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions. The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State. The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.

I think the problem in America arises with the fact that "Freedom of Speech" in the constitution seems to be unqualified.

The Irish Constitution guarantees your right in Ireland to freely express your convictions and opinions. However, it also asserts that the state should try to make sure that the radio, the press and the cinema are not used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the state.

The Constitution also states that it is an offence to publish or utter blasphemous, seditious or indecent matter.

The full text of the Irish Constitution is linked for those interested. Article 40 is the relevant article.