You’re supposed to know all this BEFORE you run for President, Bobby…or Governor, for that matter.
The Westboro Baptist Church has threatened to picket the funerals of the victims of the Lafayette theater shooting.
Governor Jindal, an alleged Presidential candidate, thinks that the First Amendment doesn’t apply to them, despite a well-publicized Supreme Court decision to the contrary. “If they come here to Louisiana, if they try to disrupt this funeral, we’re gonna lock them up,” Jindal said on “Face the Nation.”. “We won’t abide by that here…Let these families grieve in peace.”
Hmmmm. Appealing to ignorant voters. Grandstanding. Pandering. Abuse of power. Talking as if the Constitution doesn’t exist. Threatening to break the law. Sounding like an idiot blowhard.
Just the guy to give Donald Trump a run for his money.
Ethics Alarms 
You know, it’s basically everyday that laws, from the constitution all the way to the municipal code, are routinely and blatantly violated by government officials to service their desires. Only a few stand up and push back. Everyone else just cedes their position and rights and empowers these officials. Even if Jindal carries through with this, he’ll do it right before the funerals and claim ignorance later. The same judge that will tell you and me that ignorance of the law is no excuse will slap his wrist and say, well, alright. Don’t do it again.
Music to the Westboro cult’s ears. Their entire schtick is being so offensive that someone interferes with their right to free speech…and then suing. And usually winning. Fred Phelps is an accomplished civil rights lawyer. Suing people is his bread and butter.
It would also be accurate to stop calling them the Westboro baptist church.
At this point it isn’t no true Scotsman.
They aren’t a church. They are an extended film that happens to own the church building that used to be he meeting place of the Church there, before everyone was run off by the Phelps family “legal” establishment…
Most of the family that consists of the “church” are lawyers.
Film=family.
Thank you iphone.
Agreed. He has 4 kids who left the cult and who confirmed that the old man stopped even believing in God a long time ago. He’s just well aware that telling someone “God hates your dead relative” is a good way to push buttons.
So…who gets to be the arbiter of what is and isn’t religion? Is there a minimum size thresh hold? Do we get to reject people’s statements about their beliefs?
We can say whatever we want about the WBC, but we have to still grant them the same rights as anyone else (That’s pretty much the point of the first amendment). With that true, what’s the point in denying their being a church?
Irrelevant questions. No one here is denying their protections of calling themselves a religion according to the 1st Amendment.
But just as Jack’s principle that though a court nor the law may find someone guilty in trial, that doesn’t preclude US from using our brains to analyze on our own. It applies here as well. The “WBC” isn’t a BC at all. It’s a family law firm that focuses on aggressive anti-homosexual activism. You can do the research yourself, like I did, and applying a little objectivism (which I don’t expect you capable of) you’ll know what I’ve said is true.
I do know that it is useful for smearing religion (especially Christianity) across the board, and I also know your irrational and uncontrollable hatred of religion in general keeps you from making sound ethical evaluations of this topic and so you can’t grasp what I’ve discussed with Isaac.
I’m confused by all the random attacks on my person. I don’t see how they are relevant.
I still don’t see the point in stripping the church idea from WBC. If you still treat them legally as a religion, what do you get out of it? Do you strip religion from other groups that don’t meet your personal ideas on religion? Scientologists? Eastern Religions?
Other than trying to remove the WBC from your in-group of Religion, what’s the benefit?
“I’m confused by all the random attacks on my person. I don’t see how they are relevant. “
Not random. In our past handful of discussions involving religion it doesn’t take long to see in your discussions a pent up rage towards religion. It’s a good disclosure to make so people know what kind of biases are hampering your ability to see clearly.
“I still don’t see the point in stripping the church idea from WBC. If you still treat them legally as a religion, what do you get out of it? Do you strip religion from other groups that don’t meet your personal ideas on religion? Scientologists? Eastern Religions?”
Why movest thou the goal posts, doth thy argument flounder?
I am not stripping religion from anyone. The benefit here is for those who enjoy clarity. I have clearly identified that they are not a Church, let alone being a church of the Baptist persuasion. They are an organization that has the luck of owning the building where a church formerly met and the luck of maintaining legal rights to the name.
Like I said, this is identifying what they really are, and a church they are not. They are a close-knit family of lawyers that hate homosexuals.
When people report that the “Westboro Baptist Church” is at it again, it conjures up images of hundreds of parishioners lined up slandering homosexuals, it conjures up images of hundreds of the faithful hanging on every word of a fire and brimstone preacher railing on sodomy, it conjures up images of a cabal of other Churches associated with them quietly approving their behavior as Baptist Churches are so organized.
Since no one has bothered to explain what the WBC really is, it’s ultimately misrepresentational. Though I don’t suspect clarity on this topic to be a high priority of yours.
Attacks on me:
No need for attacks there. You could have simply noted that I’m an atheist who has no respect for religious belief over any other unsupported belief, and I argue against all unsupported beliefs. That also has the benefit of being accurate.
Moving the goalposts
I agree that it’s right to say that WBC is pretty much down to one family group of lawyers. I’m all in there. (I didn’t complain about that, but I didn’t specifically agree, so I can see how we disconnected on that point). It’d also be fine to say they have been condemned by most (if not all) of the larger baptist organizations. They are a, tiny, independent sect all to themselves.
Tiny, independent sects, and sects whose names don’t match what outsiders may think of their beliefs are likely to proliferate. (Parens is for backing this thought. If you agree, you can skip it. This is based on personal experience. In the “town” I grew up in, which included roughly 3000 high school aged kids, there were two church groups as small as a dozen that I knew of. They used the space of a community center and rented the basement of a different congregation’s church. And that was in a large population. In a town of only 1000 people? With the incredibly varied beliefs Christians have? I think small sects are likely. As for sects who don’t match their group, my Catholic church’s youth group once gave out condoms. That could have gotten them kicked out of the archdiocese. It’s directly counter to Catholic teaching. There’s also a methodist bible college I pass on the road to the beach that is completely unaffiliated with any methodist organization- I looked into them because they had an interesting name.) Which is where we get to a disagreement.
My issue is with your belief that you can strip the words church and baptist from WBC because of their size and their beliefs. You seem to think that saying the words “baptist” and “church” have some inherent meaning that you, an outsider to their organization, get to define. They don’t, and you don’t. It’s like when protestants split off from Catholicism. Protestant denominations still use the term church, even though it was a specifically Catholic term. There was much todo by Catholics at the time. Heck, There are evangelical protestants that don’t consider Catholics to be Christians, but it’s inappropriate to strip the term Christian from Catholics.
I think the same applies here.
It isn’t simply that you are atheist, nor that you “disrespect” those of faith*. It’s apparent in your tone that there is much more than “disrespect”.
*Ultimately EVERYONE relies on something at some point requiring faith. So even atheism is based on faith at some point.
I actually don’t strip Baptist or Church from them because of their beliefs or size. Nice strawman.
It isn’t simply that you are atheist, nor that you “disrespect” those of faith*. It’s apparent in your tone that there is much more than “disrespect”.
Hello Christian privilege. Not respecting religion as special is seen as horrible.
*Ultimately EVERYONE relies on something at some point requiring faith. So even atheism is based on faith at some point.
My faith (belief without evidence) ends roughly at “I think therefore I am” and “my senses generally perceive the world accurately.” Throw in “deductive logic is valid.” It would be impossible to function without those base assumptions.
Your attempt to make a comparison between my atheism and religion is pretty pedantic.
I actually don’t strip Baptist or Church from them because of their beliefs or size. Nice strawman.
If it’s not belief or size that you have a problem with, what is it? I understood that to be your reasoning. If I’m wrong, I’ll retract. Could you please explain your actual reasoning?
Uh, it doesn’t take “privilege” to accurately analyze your consistent tone on these topics. Nice try using a Well Poisoning attack. Fallacious.
Interesting that I also have those base assumptions in my philosophy as well, yet somehow I am fully comfortable with God. Cool thing about science, which I love greatly, is in it’s ultimate quest to explain origins and causation it increasingly relies on explanations and theories that require either *Infinite Time*, *Infinite Power*, *Infinite Universes*, *Infinite et cetera*…the very concepts those who place their faith atheism mock theists for…
But that’s none of my business.
For your sign off, you literally must not have read this
Jindal is getting a reputation as a reactionary. It’s too bad because in many ways he’s a person of great talent and leadership. Presidential politics is a good venue for bringing out the leadership flaws in candidates. Sadly, it also causes good people who would be great candidates to stay away.
This wasn’t a tough. trap to avoid.
No, it should have been a no-brainer. But, then who would ever have believed a Democrat could be socially shamed into apologizing for saying “All lives matter.” It’s a strange bizarro world out there.
Tim LeVier, gonna stick around?
Creating a Public Nuisance, Public Trespass, Creating A Traffic Hazard, Inciting to Riot, Malicious Mischief… Spitting On A Sidewalk! You can stop these people if you really want to. They don’t have to stay in jail for long, either. Just long enough for a funeral to be conducted peacefully. And if it gets them media coverage, so what? They’ll get it in any case. But the police will be the ones that look good in the process of removing vileness from the face of their town. Governor Jindal will look good as well, representing a state that knows where to draw the line.
So…your solution is selective enforcement of laws to attempt to block their speech… and attempting to shoehorn protected behavior into illegal behavior… how is that not a violation of the constitution?
Would you suggest the same treatment for gun rights protesters?
Not at all, Tiggy, as I’m sure you understand. When people are creating a public nuisance in the manner I described, they’re not protected by the Constitution. They’re in violation of the rights of others. It’s not a matter of what they’re demonstrating about, but how they’re going about it. The Constitution protects the lawful, not the lawless. However- since you want to go there- when was the last time you saw anyone holding a public meeting for the Constitution- 2nd Amendment or whatever- behaving in the manner outlined? Good citizens tend to distinguish themselves by their behavior.
Not at all, Tiggy, as I’m sure you understand. When people are creating a public nuisance in the manner I described, they’re not protected by the Constitution. They’re in violation of the rights of others. It’s not a matter of what they’re demonstrating about, but how they’re going about it. The Constitution protects the lawful, not the lawless.
WBC is careful to not break any actual, enforceable laws. They’re lawyers, and they know how to play the game. They may screw up occasionally, but, in general, to arrest them, one would have to violate the constitution in some way. I thought you knew that.
However- since you want to go there- when was the last time you saw anyone holding a public meeting for the Constitution- 2nd Amendment or whatever- behaving in the manner outlined? Good citizens tend to distinguish themselves by their behavior.
That WBC tends to be the most obnoxious and unethical of protesters does not mean that they violate any laws. I find it obnoxious to picket funerals, but it’s legal. I find it obnoxious to carry automatic rifles wearing body armor in public locations, but it’s legal.
The best response to the WBC I’ve seen is the Foo Fighters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6e5hRLbCaCs