rip act

[redparrot5446]

Today i was watching the news and they did a story on the let them rest in peace act which requires protesters to stamd at least 200 feet away from military furerals. i believe the law only exists in Illinois. i am not supporting the war but protesting at a funeral for someone that died for our country is just wrong. if youre going to protest the war you should do it in a place where someone responsible for war involvement can see you, not at a funeral of someone that has no voice in gov decisions. i also heard that the protesters are saying that the war casualties are punishments all of the gay couples in america.

[Mr. Ron]

Anyone who protests a funeral deserves to be stomped into a gut pile.

[slash_bmxer09]

Yeah. The Westboro Baptist Church. I hate this whole thing. I remember seeing a thing where they said, "Gods wrath is spilling out over our heads through the death of our own from war." Something to that effect. Here is a link to theyre site.

http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/index.html

People need to ****ing stay out of other peoples buisness. I'm not gay, but If two men want to get married and have sex or whatever, LET THEM. If in your religion it says they will go to hell, then they are going to hell to you. Let them pay for what they're doing. I don't believe this because I'm atheist so I believe let them do what they want. Damn, people need to keep their thoughts to themselves.

[Against Miik!]

Well for people who feel that strongly about it you can't really blame them. I mean, it certainly is a way to be heard. We're talking about it, right? However, it does send the wrong message. I personally wouldn't protest at a funeral, however, I see no problem with it. This should be a very simple 1st ammendment case. They have the right to peaceful protest. The law sucks.

[Mr. Ron]

Well for people who feel that strongly about it you can't really blame them. I mean, it certainly is a way to be heard. We're talking about it, right? However, it does send the wrong message. I personally wouldn't protest at a funeral, however, I see no problem with it. This should be a very simple 1st ammendment case. They have the right to peaceful protest. The law sucks.
So if you had a relative that died in Iraq and some scumbags with signs that say he died because god hated him, you'd have no problem with that?

[slash_bmxer09]

Well for people who feel that strongly about it you can't really blame them. I mean, it certainly is a way to be heard. We're talking about it, right? However, it does send the wrong message. I personally wouldn't protest at a funeral, however, I see no problem with it. This should be a very simple 1st ammendment case. They have the right to peaceful protest. The law sucks.

I don't see why they have to PROTEST at funerals in front of the families who have suffered enough with the death of a loved one. Why can't protest at a different time? What are they trying to change anyways? No matter what they do, there will probably always be gay couples. Even if it was made illegal, there will STILL be some somewhere else. Even if they hate the war, many people have hated the war, protested and nothing has changed. I just believe its wrong and disrespectful to be standing outside of a military funeral with a sign that says "God hates fags."

[Against Miik!]

So if you had a relative that died in Iraq and some scumbags with signs that say he died because god hated him, you'd have no problem with that?

Well yeah, i'd be a little pissed. But now i'm gonna lay down one of those "thats what Americas all about" speeches. The troops are fighting for democracy. And if you support a democracy like ours, you gotta support our freedoms, one of which is freedom of assembly. So yes, initial reaction would be me=pissed off. But still, point being, they should be allowed to. You can't make a law that says you aren't allowed to piss people off.

[Mr. Ron]

Well yeah, i'd be a little pissed. But now i'm gonna lay down one of those "thats what Americas all about" speeches. The troops are fighting for democracy. And if you support a democracy like ours, you gotta support our freedoms, one of which is freedom of assembly. So yes, initial reaction would be me=pissed off. But still, point being, they should be allowed to. You can't make a law that says you aren't allowed to piss people off.
Meh, I guess you're right. I just think that anyone who would do this is not worthy of our freedoms.

[Against Miik!]

I don't see why they have to PROTEST at funerals in front of the families who have suffered enough with the death of a loved one. Why can't protest at a different time? What are they trying to change anyways? No matter what they do, there will probably always be gay couples. Even if it was made illegal, there will STILL be some somewhere else. Even if they hate the war, many people have hated the war, protested and nothing has changed. I just believe its wrong and disrespectful to be standing outside of a military funeral with a sign that says "God hates fags."

Yeah, I know. They are all pretty crazy. I don't support them. However, in this country, they have the right to peacefully assemble. Now you could go so far as to say that having signs saying "God hates Fags" isn't peaceful, but thats just crap. They aren't physically infringing on anybodys rights.

[Against Miik!]

Meh, I guess you're right. I just think that anyone who would do this is not worthy of our freedoms.

They are exercising our freedoms to the fullest extent.

That being said, if somebody set them all on fire, I really wouldn't care.

[slash_bmxer09]

Yeah, I know. They are all pretty crazy. I don't support them. However, in this country, they have the right to peacefully assemble. Now you could go so far as to say that having signs saying "God hates Fags" isn't peaceful, but thats just crap. They aren't physically infringing on anybodys rights.

Yeah, your right. I just believe that they should protest some where else other than a military funeral. Thats just disrespectful. Yes its a right give to us, but come on, its just disrespectful.

That being said, if somebody set them all on fire, I really wouldn't care.

Haha. I think we should keep pissing them off, and drive them to commit some kind of illegal act (ala hit someone or something) and get them arrested. DUE PROCESS, will take that right away.

EDIT: Ok, come on I don't really MEAN that. I'm just joking.

[Against Miik!]

Yeah, your right. I just believe that they should protest some where else other than a military funeral. Thats just disrespectful. Yes its a right give to us, but come on, its just disrespectful.

But not against the law. **** Illinois, not the protestors, for being Unamerican.

[Smokey D]

Meh, I guess you're right. I just think that anyone who would do this is not worthy of our freedoms.


I love how you think the only people deserving of human and civil liberties to those who do not use them and not think yourself a hypocrite.

[Against Miik!]

I love how you think the only people deserving of human and civil liberties to those who do not use them and not think yourself a hypocrite.

rephrase possibly?

[Mr. Ron]

I love how you think the only people deserving of human and civil liberties to those who do not use them and not think yourself a hypocrite.
Oh, they can use them and they'll have my boot up their butts if they exercise them around me.

[slash_bmxer09]

Ehh, I'm with you on the whole "military funeral protesting" thing, but your hurting them for using theyre rights to the fullest potential. That means the government can take away yours. At least temporarily.

[Smokey D]

Oh, they can use them and they'll have my boot up their butts if they exercise them around me.

Protecting the rights of those you agree with defeats the purpose of having rights at all.

Though in this case I'd be inclined to agree with you.

[griftadan]

violation of the first ammendmant.

[PerpetualBurn]

I'd quite like someone from God Hates Fags to lose a family member and for someone to arrange for a huge gay orgy at the funeral.

[coheneran]

Anyone who protests a funeral deserves to be stomped into a gut pile.

I would demonstrate at Nick Griffin, Margaret Thatcher and Hitler's funerals.

[peeted]

the protesters shouldnt be protesting about the soldiers though, they should be protesting about the fact that they have been sent over there. protesting at the funerals is an insult to people who most likley didnt want to be there doing what they were doing, unlike nick griffin or thatcher etc who were actualy evil.

[YouGottaBeCrazy]

Anyone who protests a funeral deserves to be stomped into a gut pile.

well said

[coheneran]

the protesters shouldnt be protesting about the soldiers though, they should be protesting about the fact that they have been sent over there. protesting at the funerals is an insult to people who most likley didnt want to be there doing what they were doing, unlike nick griffin or thatcher etc who were actualy evil.

Yup.

[Jude]

I'm fairly certain this law is in blatant violation of the first amendment.

[griftadan]

I'd quite like someone from God Hates Fags to lose a family member and for someone to arrange for a huge gay orgy at the funeral.

pfff your just looking for an excuse to have a gay orgy

[Reaganista]

all funerals should be protested.

it's a stupid concept

[Reaganista]

I'm fairly certain this law is in blatant violation of the first amendment.
distance restrictions like this are hardly uncommon

I don't know is the SC has ever ruled on it, but I'd assume they've upheld them at some point

[Mr. Ron]

I would demonstrate at Nick Griffin, Margaret Thatcher and Hitler's funerals.
But do our boys deserve it like they do? No.



Plus, this bill doesn't restrict free speech. It simply restricts how close you can be to the funeral.

[Atomic Rain]

all funerals should be protested.

it's a stupid concept

It provides closure for families and friends, allowes said groups to console eachother as they come to terms with their loss, and as far as I can tell hurts no-one.

[Jude]

distance restrictions like this are hardly uncommon

I don't know is the SC has ever ruled on it, but I'd assume they've upheld them at some point
Still seems fishy to me. Besides lots of laws have been passed/government actions taken that were blatantly violating the first amendment.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

But do our boys deserve it like they do? No.
Thatcher wouldn't deserve it. Coheneran's a cunt for even suggesting that there's any equivalence between her and Nick Griffin.

[ringworm]

It doesnt even matter if it's constitutional or not.
It's about respect, or lack of it. I'd like to found out if one of their children died no matter what the cuase, then pay them a visit at the grave.
Anyone who protests a funeral deserves to be stomped into a gut pile.
Or worse…

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

There was a federal law signed recently banning protests at all funerals

Unconstitutionality ftl

[peeted]

has there actually been any protesting at the funerals? bar a few wackos?
its probably just some ploy to slander the image of the anti war protesters so people think there an evil bunch who protest at the soldiers and to twist there views.

[italic zero]

the wbc is relatively widespread in their funeral protesting

[Jude]

It doesnt even matter if it's constitutional or not.
It's about respect, or lack of it.
Yeah man, those ****in KKK people aren't protected by the first amendment because it's abotu RESPECT for black people!

It's amazing what a flimsy grip many Americans have on their own legal system.

[peeted]

the wbc is relatively widespread in their funeral protesting
ah, fair enuff. that realy is pretty sick.

[Jharaski]

What they do almost borders on slander, if you want to get technical. Also you can't shout fire if there is no fire. It could be argued they're trying to start a riot. They do not have these rights. Freedom of speech isn't limitless and should certainly stop when they go to a funeral just to say that the person is in hell making everyone upset. You only have one funeral.

[Jude]

What they do almost borders on slander,
Not anymore than, say, Pat Robertson insisting 9/11 was brought on by buttsex.

Also you can't shout fire if there is no fire.

They're not shouting fire.

It could be argued they're trying to start a riot.
It could be argued that the KKK marching are trying to start a riot. Or that civil rights protestors in the 60s were trying to start a riot.

They do not have these rights. Freedom of speech isn't limitless and should certainly stop when they go to a funeral just to say that the person is in hell making everyone upset. You only have one funeral.
No it shouldn't. They aren't breaking any laws...well not any constitutional ones.

[Jharaski]

the wbc is relatively widespread in their funeral protesting

They even protested at Mr Roger's funeral because he was a "fag enabler" because on his show he always said kids (including gay ones!) are okay just how they are.

[Jude]

They even protested at Mr Roger's funeral because he was a "fag enabler" because on his show he always said kids (including gay ones!) are okay just how they are.
:lol: That's so absurd it's awesome. Now I TOTALLY support them and not just on the basis of their constitutional rights.

[Jharaski]

Not anymore than, say, Pat Robertson insisting 9/11 was brought on by buttsex.


They're not shouting fire.


It could be argued that the KKK marching are trying to start a riot. Or that civil rights protestors in the 60s were trying to start a riot.

No it shouldn't. They aren't breaking any laws...well not any constitutional ones.


What I meant by the fire comment was that these people are taunting families that are in distress. It sort of applies. And I really don't give a damn whether or not they're breaking any laws. Everyone always pulls out that completely BS argument - ohhh it's in the constitution! They can do it they can do it! **** that! If they were to protest at a family member's or friend's funeral, the only thing that would stop me from shooting them would be knowing I'd only help their cause, allowing them to become the victim.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

Of course, the owners of the cemetery could always just kick them off for trespassing

[Jude]

What I meant by the fire comment was that these people are taunting families that are in distress.

That isn't remotely comparable to shouting fire though.

And I really don't give a damn whether or not they're breaking any laws. Everyone always pulls out that completely BS argument - ohhh it's in the constitution!

I will assume that is meant sarcastically even though I don't think it is...but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

They can do it they can do it! **** that! If they were to protest at a family member's or friend's funeral, the only thing that would stop me from shooting them would be knowing I'd only help their cause, allowing them to become the victim.
Good for you. Then you'd be in prison. That'd help YOUR cause all right.

[PerpetualBurn]

Non-violent protest shouldn't be banned because a few people might get upset.

[spitfirejunky]

Well yeah, i'd be a little pissed. But now i'm gonna lay down one of those "thats what Americas all about" speeches. The troops are fighting for democracy. And if you support a democracy like ours, you gotta support our freedoms, one of which is freedom of assembly. So yes, initial reaction would be me=pissed off. But still, point being, they should be allowed to. You can't make a law that says you aren't allowed to piss people off.

It is, however, extremely offensive. With people shouting that nonsense in the vicinity of a funeral, there's no way you can properly perform any of the religious customs since they require silence as a part of showing respect. It has the same effect as walking up to a Muslim mid-prayer and screaming in his/her ear, "You're going to Hell!!!" Or perhaps walking to the front of the Church and doing the same thing.

[Jude]

I don't get why everyone keeps bringing how disgusting these protesters apparently are into it. It's wholly irrelevant.

[Jharaski]

That isn't remotely comparable to shouting fire though.
They're attempting to get a rise out of people.


I will assume that is meant sarcastically even though I don't think it is...but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
I was sarcastic in saying that the constitution should guarantee it.

Good for you. Then you'd be in prison. That'd help YOUR cause all right.[/QUOTE]

They certainly deserve it though.

[Rounder]

The right to protest is an important right. It is how things get talked about, discussed and needs to be defended. However, these idiots protesting a soldiers funeral is wrong and stretching the intention of the right to the limit.

First of all, as protesters have the right to protest, Americans should also have the right to privacy. A funeral if anything deserves to be protected by a right to privacy. Even if it is a public place or a national cemetary, mourners should have the right to bury their loved ones in peace.

When my brother was buried at Arlington National Cemetary next to my father, we had tourists within eyesight of the service. When I saw them I had an almost uncontrollable desire to take one of the honor guard's sidearm and start firing into the crowd. I felt extremely violated. And they were just snapping pictures of tombstones. I can't imagine how I would have felt to hear people calling my brother and father the things these people are, as if my brother had a damn thing to do with gays or god punishing America.

In my opinion, the right to privacy should take precedance over the right to protest in private moments such as a funeral.

[Jharaski]

The right to protest is an important right. It is how things get talked about, discussed and needs to be defended. However, these idiots protesting a soldiers funeral is wrong and stretching the intention of the right to the limit.

First of all, as protesters have the right to protest, Americans should also have the right to privacy. A funeral if anything deserves to be protected by a right to privacy. Even if it is a public place or a national cemetary, mourners should have the right to bury their loved ones in peace.

When my brother was buried at Arlington National Cemetary next to my father, we had tourists within eyesight of the service. When I saw them I had an almost uncontrollable desire to take one of the honor guard's sidearm and start firing into the crowd. I felt extremely violated. And they were just snapping pictures of tombstones. I can't imagine how I would have felt to hear people calling my brother and father the things these people are, as if my brother had a damn thing to do with gays or god punishing America.

In my opinion, the right to privacy should take precedance over the right to protest in private moments such as a funeral.


Spot on. The right to protest exists as long as it doesn't infringe on other rights... like the right to privacy and emotional well being.

[coheneran]

all funerals should be protested.

it's a stupid concept

Once again, I am reminded of the teachings of my wise and everlasting mentor, Bill Hicks; Pro-Lifers unites! Link arms and block cemeteries! Nobody dies on America's watch! This is happy fun golden time.

[PerpetualBurn]

Spot on. The right to protest exists as long as it doesn't infringe on other rights... like the right to privacy and emotional well being.

Balls to that. Crying about a "right to emotional well-being" is patently absurd in comparison to freedom of speech and the freedom to protest in a non-violent manner.

[Jude]

They're attempting to get a rise out of people.

Which is not at all the same as shouting fire in a crowded theater.

I was sarcastic in saying that the constitution should guarantee it.

This is why our civil liberties are in such a ****ed up state :upset:


They certainly deserve it though.
They also deserve the same constitutional rights as everyone else. End of story.

First of all, as protesters have the right to protest, Americans should also have the right to privacy. A funeral if anything deserves to be protected by a right to privacy. Even if it is a public place or a national cemetary, mourners should have the right to bury their loved ones in peace.
They do. They can go to a private cemetary and have the owner kick any intruders off.
When my brother was buried at Arlington National Cemetary next to my father, we had tourists within eyesight of the service. When I saw them I had an almost uncontrollable desire to take one of the honor guard's sidearm and start firing into the crowd.
Man I'm glad we have gun control...it's Arlington National Cemetary, what do you expect?

Spot on. The right to protest exists as long as it doesn't infringe on other rights... like the right to privacy and emotional well being.
Um.....those rights aren't guaranteed in America's code of law. If you two guys aren't from America, that's one thing, but if you are....did you pass high school civics?

Balls to that. Crying about a "right to emotional well-being" is patently absurd in comparison to freedom of speech and the freedom to protest in a non-violent manner.
This is correct. The freedom of speech and assembly is a crucial part of democratic society. Freedom to have "emotional wellbeing" comes far, far, far below it on any list of importance and not at all in the foundations of American law.

[Rounder]

Balls to that. Crying about a "right to emotional well-being" is patently absurd in comparison to freedom of speech and the freedom to protest in a non-violent manner.

Well, I think he made a valid point aside from 'emotional well being', there is already a precedent set for the right of privacy superceding the right to protest, as in protesters can't protest in your house, or in any government building, they are moved outside whenever one of them gets inside. I Think the same should apply to a memorial service.

[Jude]

Well, I think he made a valid point aside from 'emotional well being', there is already a precedent set for the right of privacy superceding the right to protest, as in protesters can't protest in your house, or in any government building, they are moved outside whenever one of them gets inside. I Think the same should apply to a memorial service.
A house is private. I'm not sure about the government buildings. A cemetary, if private, has an owner who can be called to tell any intruders to get off, and there are police who can be called if they are trespassing. That's as far as your "right to privacy" goes.

[PerpetualBurn]

They can't protest in your house because that would be trepassing and would involve breaking and entering or otherwise violently forcing their way into the property.

[rockdude4ever]

I don't think someone should be able to protest the war by protesting at the funerals of soldiers just like I don't think people should be able to protest movies by yelling "FIRE" in the middle of a movie at a movie theater.

[Jude]

Winning threads like this is always a bitter victory because I keep coming back expecting another post to argue agains but there's nothing :upset:

Edit: What the hell ^^ that's already been discredited as a valid argument

[italic zero]

Inciting anger is the same as inciting panic ITT

[Riva]

Yeah, I know. They are all pretty crazy. I don't support them. However, in this country, they have the right to peacefully assemble. Now you could go so far as to say that having signs saying "God hates Fags" isn't peaceful, but thats just crap. They aren't physically infringing on anybodys rights.

I know that as a non-citizen of the United States of America, I have no concept of freedom and democracy, but it seems to me like they are infringing on the rights of the mourners to a private ceremony.

[Reaganista]

Non-violent protest shouldn't be banned because a few people might get upset.
not banned

[Mr. Ron]

I know that as a non-citizen of the United States of America, I have no concept of freedom and democracy, but it seems to me like they are infringing on the rights of the mourners to a private ceremony.
This is true.

[Reaganista]

It provides closure for families and friends, allowes said groups to console eachother as they come to terms with their loss, and as far as I can tell hurts no-one.
it's an utterly wasteful consumption event.

Still seems fishy to me. Besides lots of laws have been passed/government actions taken that were blatantly violating the first amendment.
but this has been going on for years.

if they haven't upheld it, the court must've at least at some point had a chance to rule on it and declined. and in this case that's basically the same thing

[Jude]

I know that as a non-citizen of the United States of America, I have no concept of freedom and democracy, but it seems to me like they are infringing on the rights of the mourners to a private ceremony.
So it seems, but in American law there is no explicit right to privacy from others, if you're in public area at least. If you're on private property then the issue is trespassing, not privacy. And there are limitations on how much privacy the GOVERNMENT can violate, but they are much looser on private citizens.

Meanwhile the right of free assembly is specifically spelled out in the Bill of Rights, giving it higher precedence than this ethereal "right to privacy" people keep bringing up.

[Reaganista]

there's breast-feeding laws that allow women to breast-feed in public and prohibits others from harassing them while they do it
they've been around for a while

[Jude]

It all depends on how you define harrassment.

[Reaganista]

harassment is an act that a reasonable person would expect to cause distress in the victim. or something like that.

[coheneran]

There are two basic rules that could solve this problem, as well as most of the world's other problems (if only people would follow them:():

Do what you want as long as you are not impinging on someone else's freedom,

and

Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself.

[PerpetualBurn]

not banned

Pardon?

[Jude]

harassment is an act that a reasonable person would expect to cause distress in the victim. or something like that.
Seems kind of open. Doesn't it have to be persistent and despite protest or something too? I don't know though.

[Matt?]

i don't even know what to say about people who protest at funerals.

wtf...

[ringworm]

It's amazing what a flimsy grip many Americans have on their own legal system.
It's not even about that man.
I guess I could go around trying to piss off everyone I could at the worst times in their life while trying to stay "Constitutional" at the same time, but some things just need to be left alone.
I do see your point, but there comes a time when people need to quit with this kind of mentality & just respect other people.
I guess that's just too hard these days.

[Jude]

It's not even about that man.
I guess I could go around trying to piss off everyone I could at the worst times in their life while trying to stay "Constitutional" at the same time, but some things just need to be left alone.

And as long as you didn't break any harassment or trespassing laws, you'd be totaly within your rights. We're not discussing common courtesy here we're discussing laws.

I do see your point, but there comes a time when people need to quit with this kind of mentality & just respect other people.
I guess that's just too hard these days.
See above

[Reaganista]

Pardon?
not banned.

Seems kind of open. Doesn't it have to be persistent and despite protest or something too? I don't know though.
persistant harassment is stalking

[ringworm]

We're not discussing common courtesy here we're discussing laws.
Exactly my point. Which is more important?
Which used to serve us better, back in "the day", this would not have been tolerated or even thought of, people had better judgement & overal more of a self policing or just plain better manners.
That is exactly what's missing theses days, total lack of respect but perfectly legal behavior.
And it will only get worse.
Self consumed, single minded, highly educated but extremely moronic people with zero common sense.

[Jharaski]

Jude. Listen. I know about the law. I know that the constitution guarantees rights. Any jerk and ****twat certainly should have rights, even these people.

But to intentionally upset, taunt and torment people at a funeral is way beyond what should be allowed. It'd be a different story if they would just do it at another time, at public rallies and then say all of the people who died since the last speech are in hell.

What is so wrong about limiting someone's freedom of speech if they're abusing that right to go to upset others? Morally, do you think it should be allowed? Forget the law. Pretend this was another country or something, pretend we did not have freedom of speech.

Shouting fire in a crowded theater IS similar to trying to get a rise out of people. Don't get into semantics here. Freedom of speech was intended to end when it creates dangerous situations. I am well beyond convinced that WBC is trying to get people to attack them so they can further their cause.

Listen... I love freedom of speech. I love civil liberties. But this is just sick. You would change your mind if they protested at one of your family member's funeral. They do it for anyone and everyone and it's not uncommon that they're wrong about who's gay or whatnot.

[Jharaski]

Your last sentence made me laugh, although that's kind of irrelevant. :-/ The thing is, people use freedom of speech to upset others all the time. Some women who've been widowed as a result of the Iraq War probably get very upset when they see anti-war protesters. Obviously one is on a different scale from the other, but free speech isn't free speech if there's an exemption clause for upsetting people.

Anti war protests aren't intended to upset people. But WBC makes that top priority.


Shouting fire in a crowded theater for no reason isn't trying to get a rise out of people, it's doing something that could directly lead to people being trampled. Phelps and his crew doing this kind of crap isn't going to cause anyone to be directly physically hurt.


Just trying to throw a technicality in there.


If someone was caught and sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of being out in five years after raping my girlfriend I'm pretty confident that I'd want to torture the guy to death myself. And that's why victims don't get to make laws.

But there's a difference between being a vigilante and/or harming people and keeping people from harming you with a reasonable measure. (Now we get into what's reasonable.)

[spitfirejunky]

Am I allowed to go to Church during Sunday Mass and start screaming, "You're all going to Hell!!!"

[coheneran]

Am I allowed to go to Church during Sunday Mass and start screaming, "You're all going to Hell!!!"

No, but you should do it outside with a megaphone and a brass band.

[WindowLedge]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?search=god+hates+interview&v=-STpW7jarrs

fox news interview with a WBC member

this would be funny if she wasn't dead serious

[Mr. Ron]

Am I allowed to go to Church during Sunday Mass and start screaming, "You're all going to Hell!!!"
No, thats the priest's job.

[PerpetualBurn]

not banned.


Yeah, and what's that meant to mean in relation to what I said?

[spitfirejunky]

No, but you should do it outside with a megaphone and a brass band.

No, thats the priest's job.

Why not?

[Danger Bird]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[Jharaski]

We're supposed to be allowed to bear arms but I don't see m16's on sale for civilians. Man talk about limiting freedom.

[Atomic Rain]

We're supposed to be allowed to bear arms but I don't see m16's on sale for civilians. Man talk about limiting freedom.

You know I was kinda under the impression you could buy assault rifles in some states.

[Danger Bird]

Isn't the ban on assault weapons over?

[The_Passenger]

You know I was kinda under the impression you could buy assault rifles in some states.

Yeah, I thought that assault weapons were legal in most American states. Guess not.

[Jharaski]

You get the point. How about places you can take them? Private places can ban taking in guns, but public schools ban them for saftey reasons. Why shouldnt speech be limited to prevent distress? Why should people be allowed to use their freedom to intentionally hurt others?

[Smokey D]

Because being hurt by a bullet and being hurt by a word are completely different things.

[Reaganista]

Yeah, and what's that meant to mean in relation to what I said?
[they are] not banned

[Jharaski]

It's just an analogy to show that freedoms outlined in the constitution are not absolute.

[italic zero]

Living constitution

[coheneran]

If people took freedom all the way, the world would go to ****. You gotta be reasonable. Protesting is reasonable, protesting at a funeral is not.

[PerpetualBurn]

[they are] not banned

[I did not] say it was.

[PerpetualBurn]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?search=god+hates+interview&v=-STpW7jarrs

fox news interview with a WBC member

this would be funny if she wasn't dead serious

What the hell was that? They don't ask her a single pointed question. It's just "Oh what a naughty group you are. You should be ashamed."
Why have her on TV if you're not going to rip her apart. I'd love to see her talk to Jeremy Paxman.

[coheneran]

What the hell was that? They don't ask her a single pointed question. It's just "Oh what a naughty group you are. You should be ashamed."
Why have her on TV if you're not going to rip her apart. I'd love to see her talk to Jeremy Paxman.

Hahaha, J-Pax would slice any rhetoric to shreds with his sharp katana of logic and autocue.:p

[PerpetualBurn]

Nothing beat when he interviewed that police chief (whose name escapes me) and he dodged a question, so Paxman asked it 8 times. The guy said something like "I've already answered that question [he hadn't] and if you ask it again I'll walk out right now."

So Paxman asked it again. And the guy stormed off.

[coheneran]

Nothing beat when he interviewed that police chief (whose name escapes me) and he dodged a question, so Paxman asked it 8 times. The guy said something like "I've already answered that question [he hadn't] and if you ask it again I'll walk out right now."

So Paxman asked it again. And the guy stormed off.

Sir Ian Bliar. The shoot-to-kill-brown-people guy.

[PerpetualBurn]

That's probably the guy.

In this interview, Paxman asks Michael Howard the same question 12 times, and doesn't get a straight answer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhFaESyr0Rw

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

Sir Ian Bliar. The shoot-to-kill-brown-people guy.god you're a jackass

[AA-12]

Anyone who protests a funeral deserves to be stomped into a gut pile.
Well said my fellow good man.

[Jharaski]

Well all you'd need to say to rip apart a WBC member is ask them why they go to court. "If a man sues you for your shirt give him your coat too." That'll shut them right up.

[PerpetualBurn]

Yeah, I don't really see why they bother to legitimise them by having them on a mainstream news show, but seeing as they did, they could've at least shown them up. The whole "You are naughty little people" lecture was just lame.

[DillingerEscp]

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/6/1/82458/92817

Lol, owned.

woops, wrong link.
edit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?search=God+Hates+Fags&v=tazZY7Amr4k

there...lol owned. ... the other link is cool too though, but has nothing to do with this.

[Jude]

Exactly my point. Which is more important?

Laws. If you want to make your own country where common courtesy is more important, try and revolt. but have fun trying to have a war for independence where you're considering the feelings of the US soldiers blowing up your little commune very carefully.

Which used to serve us better, back in "the day", this would not have been tolerated or even thought of, people had better judgement & overal more of a self policing or just plain better manners.

Back in the day it wasn't tolerated if you spoke out against the King's policies either and they would kill you.

That is exactly what's missing theses days, total lack of respect but perfectly legal behavior.
And it will only get worse.
Self consumed, single minded, highly educated but extremely moronic people with zero common sense.
I'd rather have a society ruled by sensible laws than by someone's whacked out version of "politeness."
It'd be a different story if they would just do it at another time, at public rallies and then say all of the people who died since the last speech are in hell.
How would it be a different story? They're doing the same thing.

Shouting fire in a crowded theater IS similar to trying to get a rise out of people. Don't get into semantics here. Freedom of speech was intended to end when it creates dangerous situations. I am well beyond convinced that WBC is trying to get people to attack them so they can further their cause.
So trying to get a rise out of people is now illegal? Great, better tell every satirist in the country they're gonna get arrested.
I don't care if you're convinced they're trying to get a fight started. The fact is they're just a bunch of wackos totally within their rights.

You would change your mind if they protested at one of your family member's funeral.
A) my family members wouldn't be in the military
B) no I wouldn't change my views about what is and isn't constitutional because of that

[Jharaski]

How would it be a different story? They're doing the same thing.


A) my family members wouldn't be in the military
B) no I wouldn't change my views about what is and isn't constitutional because of that

It's different because they're doing at the FUNERAL and ruining it for the family members. And it doesn't matter if your family is in the military or not. They protest at anyone's funeral they suspect of "evil doing." You can't tell me you'd still support them 100% if they did that. At least tell me you'd at least THINK they should leave.

[Jude]

It's different because they're doing at the FUNERAL and ruining it for the family members. And it doesn't matter if your family is in the military or not. They protest at anyone's funeral they suspect of "evil doing." You can't tell me you'd still support them 100% if they did that. At least tell me you'd at least THINK they should leave.
I'd think they should but what I think has no bearing on the law.

[Jharaski]

I'd think they should but what I think has no bearing on the law.

Would the law protect their right to go in and dance in front of the casket singing "as the sinner.... as the sinner... as the sinner burns in hell. he is such a fag.. and he burns for it! your beloved one is in hell!" (of course, you know what tune that is to). Is that free speech? And why not change the law? The constitution orignally declared only white, property owning men as citizens, and here we extend that right to "savages and mongrels." We're guaranteed guns, but our militia can't be in the school. Why not change one more thing?

[Shell]

Would the law protect their right to go in and dance in front of the casket singing "as the sinner.... as the sinner... as the sinner burns in hell. he is such a fag.. and he burns for it! your beloved one is in hell!" (of course, you know what tune that is to). Is that free speech? And why not change the law? The constitution orignally declared only white, property owning men as citizens, and here we extend that right to "savages and mongrels." We're guaranteed guns, but our militia can't be in the school. Why not change one more thing?


Too bad that people have gotten so caught up in what is their right by the law that they have forgotten what it means to respect each other. :(

btw... I have yet to figure out what tune they were singing to. :confused:

[Already_Taken]

It may be within their rights to protest, but this is not protest. This is pure harrassment. What good is this doing for them? Who are they speaking to, the Iraqi's? Doubt it. It is purely to get a rise out of people, which in my book is unjustified harrassment.

Also, take a looksy around that rubbish site of theirs. Looks like slander to me. These people will be punished in the end, somehow. If this lady that is apparently their spokeswoman were to be shot in the head, I honestly don't think there would even be a murder trial. Pure scum.

[Against Miik!]

It may be within their rights to protest, but this is not protest. This is pure harrassment. What good is this doing for them? Who are they speaking to, the Iraqi's? Doubt it. It is purely to get a rise out of people, which in my book is unjustified harrassment.

Also, take a looksy around that rubbish site of theirs. Looks like slander to me. These people will be punished in the end, somehow. If this lady that is apparently their spokeswoman were to be shot in the head, I honestly don't think there would even be a murder trial. Pure scum.

You could call any protest harassment. Especially when it involves groups like PETA.

[ringworm]

Laws. If you want to make your own country where common courtesy is more important, try and revolt. but have fun trying to have a war for independence where you're considering the feelings of the US soldiers blowing up your little commune very carefully.
What? :confused: OK, whatever…This isn't a "new concept" that requires revolting & starting a new society, just using your head. Man, you really get carried away with your comparisons. :p
Back in the day it wasn't tolerated if you spoke out against the King's policies either and they would kill you.
You went a little too far back.

You fail to realize I do understand they are well within their rights OK.
I'd rather have a society ruled by sensible laws than by someone's whacked out version of "politeness."
I guess it's too much to ask to do 2 things at one time.
"Whacked Out"??? How is letting people bury someone in peace Whacked Out?
Obey the law & respect others. Is that "hard"?
Here is ALL I meant. So simple yet so hard for anyone to follow anymore.
Too bad that people have gotten so caught up in what is their right by the law that they have forgotten what it means to respect each other.

[Jude]

Would the law protect their right to go in and dance in front of the casket singing "as the sinner.... as the sinner... as the sinner burns in hell. he is such a fag.. and he burns for it! your beloved one is in hell!" (of course, you know what tune that is to). Is that free speech?
Free speech? Yes. However assuming the funeral was being held in a private location I could tell the guy to get out and if he didn't, I'd have him busted for trespassing.

And why not change the law? The constitution orignally declared only white, property owning men as citizens, and here we extend that right to "savages and mongrels." We're guaranteed guns, but our militia can't be in the school. Why not change one more thing?
That paragraph sounds like satire. I refuse to believe you're serious.

What? OK, whatever…This isn't a "new concept" that requires revolting & starting a new society, just using your head. Man, you really get carried away with your comparisons.
Having the US be run based on "common courtesy" instead of rule of law would in fact be a new concept.

You went a little too far back.

You fail to realize I do understand they are well within their rights OK.
Well then what's there to argue about? I think they're dicks and being rude too. The point is they should be allowed to as long as they aren't breaking any other laws about trespassing, etc.

I guess it's too much to ask to do 2 things at one time.
"Whacked Out"??? How is letting people bury someone in peace Whacked Out?

It's whacked out to have someone run the country with their goal being to make sure politeness is enforced everywhere, which was what you were implying you wanted.

Obey the law & respect others. Is that "hard"?
Not for most. However the only one that anyone's required to do is the former.

Here is ALL I meant. So simple yet so hard for anyone to follow anymore.
irrelevant

[Jharaski]

Free speech? Yes. However assuming the funeral was being held in a private location I could tell the guy to get out and if he didn't, I'd have him busted for trespassing.

So if it were not private, it would be free speech to continuously interrupt and ruin the funeral for the family? Everytime someone goes to say something, they cut in and start screaming?


That paragraph sounds like satire. I refuse to believe you're serious.


You know what my stance on this is already, so you can figure that out. I feel freedom of speech should not be absolute, and the Founding Father's would be absolutely mortified by this gross misuse of it. It was implemented to protect citizens from criticizing the government.


Having the US be run based on "common courtesy" instead of rule of law would in fact be a new concept.


Well there's a difference between ruining a funeral and not holding the door for someone.



Just tell me what's so wrong about limiting their rights. This would not fly in most other countries, so why let it happen here? They hate America and all of its freedoms anyway, so why not just... not let them have any?

[ringworm]

It's whacked out to have someone run the country with their goal being to make sure politeness is enforced everywhere, which was what you were implying you wanted.
I never implied that. Jeesh, your exhausting.
People should know within themselves how to treat each other kindly & respectful. DONE.

[coheneran]

I never implied that. Jeesh, your exhausting.
People should know within themselves how to treat each other kindly & respectful. DONE.

We gotta inject some basic morality into education, but encourage the individual development of ethics.

[Shell]

We gotta inject some basic morality into education, but encourage the individual development of ethics.

Good luck with that... not really gonna find it unless you're looking in a private/parochial school. Public schools are too burdened down with trying not to offend anyone to worry about our kids' morals. Then again - shouldn't parents be instilling the morals into our next generation?

Was that way off topic or what? Sorry

[Shell]

So if it were not private, it would be free speech to continuously interrupt and ruin the funeral for the family? Everytime someone goes to say something, they cut in and start screaming?



You know what my stance on this is already, so you can figure that out. I feel freedom of speech should not be absolute, and the Founding Father's would be absolutely mortified by this gross misuse of it. It was implemented to protect citizens from criticizing the government.



Well there's a difference between ruining a funeral and not holding the door for someone.



Just tell me what's so wrong about limiting their rights. This would not fly in most other countries, so why let it happen here? They hate America and all of its freedoms anyway, so why not just... not let them have any?

This is one thing that has crossed my mind quite a few times. If these WBC people hate America so much, why don't they move to some other country that doesn't "love the fags"?

[Jharaski]

This is one thing that has crossed my mind quite a few times. If these WBC people hate America so much, why don't they move to some other country that doesn't "love the fags"?


Because they need to preach their message. And Sweden is TOO faggy for them. I think?

[guitrguy]

Because they need to preach their message. And Sweden is TOO faggy for them. I think?
hahahaha, it is.


Beeyotch:
A) WBC will say the same crap in every country they go to.
B) Its not that easy to move to another country.

[coheneran]

Good luck with that... not really gonna find it unless you're looking in a private/parochial school. Public schools are too burdened down with trying not to offend anyone to worry about our kids' morals. Then again - shouldn't parents be instilling the morals into our next generation?

Was that way off topic or what? Sorry

www.summerhillschool.co.uk

[Shell]

www.summerhillschool.co.uk

Nice... I'm gonna bookmark that and refer back to it in 10 years or so.

[Jude]

So if it were not private, it would be free speech to continuously interrupt and ruin the funeral for the family? Everytime someone goes to say something, they cut in and start screaming?

If it's in a public area, AFAIK yes.


You know what my stance on this is already, so you can figure that out. I feel freedom of speech should not be absolute, and the Founding Father's would be absolutely mortified by this gross misuse of it. It was implemented to protect citizens from criticizing the government.

Comparing limitation of First Amendment rights to the banning of slavery is insane. For one thing, the allowance of slavery completely contradicts the ideas expressed as the basis for the constitution, while First Amendment rights square perfectly with them.


Well there's a difference between ruining a funeral and not holding the door for someone.

Not legally.


Just tell me what's so wrong about limiting their rights.
You can't be wishy washy about inalienable rights.

This would not fly in most other countries, so why let it happen here? They hate America and all of its freedoms anyway, so why not just... not let them have any?
What are you talking about?

I never implied that.
Well whatever you say, but you said "which is more important, laws or courtesy?" with the implication that you think courtesy is more important. Which is absurd.

We gotta inject some basic morality into education, but encourage the individual development of ethics
Morality and ethics are both horribly subjective. What if midwestern Bible thumpers got to decide which ethics were injected into education? As much as they go on about "moral" values, I think they're extremely immoral.

This is one thing that has crossed my mind quite a few times. If these WBC people hate America so much, why don't they move to some other country that doesn't "love the fags"?
They're ****nuts. If that one lady that was on FOX is any basis to judge the rest by, they're all a bunch of schizophrenics too. She said most of the church belongs to her family. Mental illnesses tend to be heritable :lol:

[coheneran]

Morality and ethics are both horribly subjective. What if midwestern Bible thumpers got to decide which ethics were injected into education? As much as they go on about "moral" values, I think they're extremely immoral.

Sorry, just to clear up my take on ethics and morality:

Ethics are behavioural guidelines that are created by the individual, formed from the individual's own experiences.

Morality is an outside set of behavioural guidelines, and so is most often obsolete or produce the "wrong" effect than that originally intended.

I was raised fairly basically on morality, for example not hitting people and not stealing, but my parents encouraged me to live by my own ethics and draw from my own experiences of life, not from someone else's.

[PerpetualBurn]

Surely that's backwards. Morals are personal, ethics majorital.

For instance, doctors have an ethical code of conduct.

[Shell]

So parents should teach their children morals (personal)... school should teach them ethics (majority)?
But you know if there is one group of people who do not fit into that majority, there will be a huge uproar... just like with anything.

[PerpetualBurn]

I'm not necessarily saying that either should be taught, just what they are.

Ethics are morals adopted by a group e.g. doctors must strive to preserve life; as stated in the Hippocratic oath by which they abide.

[coheneran]

Surely that's backwards. Morals are personal, ethics majorital.

For instance, doctors have an ethical code of conduct.

What about Church morality?

I think that the doctors ethical code of always saving lives works in that they sign on the dotted line as if to say that their personal ethics are to save lives, not that they accept saving lives as a code given unto them.

I guess whoever wrote that code was making the assumption that people become doctors to preserve life, not end it.

[Shell]

I'm not necessarily saying that either should be taught, just what they are.

Ethics are morals adopted by a group e.g. doctors must strive to preserve life; as stated in the Hippocratic oath by which they abide.


I was just referring back to a previous post that someone said we need to inject morals and ethics into our education... or something to that effect.

[PerpetualBurn]

What about Church morality?

I think that the doctors ethical code of always saving lives works in that they sign on the dotted line as if to say that their personal ethics are to save lives, not that they accept saving lives as a code given unto them.

I guess whoever wrote that code was making the assumption that people become doctors to preserve life, not end it.

Church morality is still morality on a personal level, though I suppose it could easily be considered ethics as well. The lines not solid.

The point is that doctor's personal morals might be in favour of euthanasia, but their ethics would supercede that for purposes of their career.

I was just referring back to a previous post that someone said we need to inject morals and ethics into our education... or something to that effect.

Ethical conduct should certainly instilled in schools. Whether or not this is done directly as a spoken lesson, or simply done by action in the way that children must adhere to authority is different.

[coheneran]

I was just referring back to a previous post that someone said we need to inject morals and ethics into our education... or something to that effect.

What I meant by that is that a child's education (not just through the system, but from society as a whole) should provide a basic set of moral codes (such as non-violence and compassion) to set a firm base, but to encourage the child to make her own ethical decisions based on her take of the world.

For example, the priests teach "Thou shalt not steal", but what if one is near to death of starvation, is it then wrong to steal food?

[Shell]

wtc why can't I do a quote right?!!

What I meant by that is that a child's education (not just through the system, but from society as a whole) should provide a basic set of moral codes (such as non-violence and compassion) to set a firm base, but to encourage the child to make her own ethical decisions based on her take of the world.

Anyway, coheneren...
Didn't it use to back in the day?

[coheneran]

The point is that doctor's personal morals might be in favour of euthanasia, but their ethics would supercede that for purposes of their career.

I think in this case we merely need to decide which word means what.

Dictionary is being unhelpful, and describes "morality" thus:

A personal or social set of standards for good or bad behaviour and character, or the quality of being right, honest or acceptable.

[coheneran]

wtc why can't I do a quote right?!!



Anyway, coheneren...
Didn't it use to back in the day?

I don't know, I've only been around seventeen years, sixteen that I can remember.

[PerpetualBurn]

And I believe that ethics would refer to the study or set of morals as a whole. Either way, it is usual to refer to a country's/profession's set of morals as their ethics, so I'd say the first post I referred to of yours had it backwards.

[coheneran]

Your post just confused me even more.

[PerpetualBurn]

Ethics=accepted moral code

[coheneran]

So someone of Christian morality is someone whose morality is generally accepted as "good and right" by Christians?

[PerpetualBurn]

I suppose in something that rigid that the morals and ethics of Christians are one and the same, yes.

[coheneran]

The only problem I have with this is trying to adapt to calling my anarchistic beliefs moral. I'm used to spitting when I say that word.