More hate :(

[Timber Loftis]

Barry, sorry but I generally disagree that words should be stiffled in any way whatsoever. When coupled with actions, or in extreme circumstances (egregious Intentional Infliction of Distress cases), there's a problem. But, generally I think all words should be allowed. If one view "hates" you for this or that, then join the human race -- any view is hated by somebody.

Limiting words results from and exacerbates the wearing of one's feelings on one's sleeve. Children should be told when they are wrong, failing grades should be given when merited, and we should all be willing to take a little flak for who we are without getting our panties in a wad.

[Edit] Y'know I just considered the fact that "panties in a wad" posted in response to a thread about anti-homosexuality may be offensive. And funny. Oh, well, if you read this and I have offended you, flame away. It was a figure of speech and was unintentional. Unlike all the other times when I'm blatantly offensive.

[ 10-08-2003, 02:54 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Skunk]

Isn't this plaque a clear case of slander?

You can't *prove* that the victim went to Hell - so it ought not to be that difficult for the family to get a restraining order preventing the use of the victim's name and details...

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Skunk: Isn't this plaque a clear case of slander? You can't *prove* that the victim went to Hell - so it ought not to be that difficult for the family to get a restraining order preventing the use of the victim's name and details...

Well, politically, this whole thing WON'T happen. However, assuming it did, the family would sue for libel (written words, slander is spoken). Now, you are right in saying the "truth" defense would not apply as one cannot prove this. However, the plaintiff would have a darned difficult time proving damages -- and without damages/harm there is no recovery.

[Chewbacca]

I do wonder, if any violence can be traced back as being promoted by this fellow, if he and/or his organization could be sued the under the same premise the KKK and other hate groups were sued by the Southern Poverty Law Center for inciting/condoning hate crimes.

The SPLC has basically bankrupted a whole lot of hate organizations by linking them to inciting violent crimes.

Here is an archived news article on the topic of suing haters out of business:

http://abcnews.go.com/onair/WorldNew...s_feature.html

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Barry, sorry but I generally disagree that words should be stiffled in any way whatsoever. When coupled with actions, or in extreme circumstances (egregious Intentional Infliction of Distress cases), there's a problem. But, generally I think all words should be allowed. If one view "hates" you for this or that, then join the human race -- any view is hated by somebody. Limiting words results from and exacerbates the wearing of one's feelings on one's sleeve. Children should be told when they are wrong, failing grades should be given when merited, and we should all be willing to take a little flak for who we are without getting our panties in a wad. [Edit] Y'know I just considered the fact that "panties in a wad" posted in response to a thread about anti-homosexuality may be offensive. And funny. Oh, well, if you read this and I have offended you, flame away. It was a figure of speech and was unintentional. Unlike all the other times when I'm blatantly offensive.

Well, my position is that if words harm someone then thats wrong. As far as I'm concerned I could care less about the free speech of bigots. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but you know me - I've never been one for half measures. And personally I find your second point (about wearing intentions on our sleeves) a little bit irrelevant. I was talking about hate being preached against the materially innocent and thus harming them. Its not quite the same thing as telling off a kid with a bad report card, and its not a slippery slope to it either. There is a very real difference between someone who wants to attack a way of life without justification and someone who tells uncomfortable truths. There is no way someone saying gays will go to hell can be considered to be telling uncomfortable truths and therefore merge these two issues. Or at least, not in my mind.

And as for the edit - If you hadn't said something I doubt I would have noticed it! I didn't find it offensive in the slightest... sorry to dissapoint! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Edit] For the much more mundane purpose of correcting a spelling mistake.

[ 10-08-2003, 05:41 AM: Message edited by: Barry the Sprout ]

[Donut]

Originally posted by Cloudbringer: No offense, Rokenn, but is this just for our info or to make a statement about someone's religion? I think the idea as noted above, is tasteless and crass and downright obnoxious to the family and others and the guy suggesting it is probably a publicity seeker, but I don't see how we can discuss this without it turning into another heated 'religious people are intolerant!' thread.

I don't think anyone is generalising about religion here. Fred Phelps is just a hateful man pure and simple.

Also he is anti-american!

[Cloudbringer]

Originally posted by Rokenn: quote: Originally posted by Cloudbringer: No offense, Rokenn, but is this just for our info or to make a statement about someone's religion? I think the idea as noted above, is tasteless and crass and downright obnoxious to the family and others and the guy suggesting it is probably a publicity seeker, but I don't see how we can discuss this without it turning into another heated 'religious people are intolerant!' thread. The rest here is not aimed at you, Rokenn, it's just a general comment of mine. [img]smile.gif[/img] There's one bad apple in every bunch and I certainly acknowledge there are so-called religious people who are over the top. Same in politics. But after a while the same old arguments just seem stale. I'm sorry but one reason I don't participate more often in this forum, other than as a mod, is that I find it seems to frequently boil down to making fun or ranting about either religion (most often Christianity) or the political left and right taking shots at one another. I've seen a few good discussions, don't get me wrong, but alot of the time it seems the bulk of the threads here are aimed at jabbing the religious or the heavily left/right politically oriented. Just constant 'heavy' topics that incite anger or irritation rather than inspire discussions of a concept or event. Not much for discussion there, it ends up on a loop nobody can get off of. That said, I have seen a few 'lighter' threads and figure there's always hope! Ahem.. sorry Rokenn, don't want to off-topic your thread!

The article pretty much speaks for itself. The community does not want this 'memorial' but this man who is so twisted up inside with hatred and venom is using legal tactics to force the to display it. Sadly there are too many that share is view of the world.

I find it odd that you complain about 'heavy' topics in this forum, as that was the whole reason it was created. 'Light' topics in the news mostly seem to pop up in the GD forum *shrug* [/QUOTE]It isn't the topics but the way they tend to be most frequently anti-religion or anti(left/right)politics in such a way as to inspire 'circular' debates.

In this case I doubt anyone will argue that the guy's a genius and deserves to be enshrined, himself. Obviously the base reaction we'd have is one of disgust at the intent, even if we think he has the freedom to speak his mind. The only 'debate/discussion' that I could see coming from an article like this was a more general anti-religion one like we've seen with similar threads. But so far, so good.

Oh and if you read the opening by Z, this is not JUST a 'heavy' thread forum, or wasn't intended that way. [img]smile.gif[/img] It is where such things go, of course, but not originally intended as soley comprised of such.

[Link]

Sorry, but I don't really understand why this should turn into a 'religion is intolerant' debate. We could just stick to this article, and the person, and not talk about religion just as easy IMHO.

I'm not gay, but if I would ran into that guy (that Rev. Fred Phelps) I would probably beat him up so bad, he could never preach again. The fact that he has NO feelings at all, should be enough reason for the Christian authorities (i.e. the pope, and cardinals) to releave him from his command.

This 'so called' revenant doesn't understand anything about the principles of religion, so it seems. According to the bible, God and Jesus (if they are in fact two different 'persons') are the only ones who can speak right or wrong without being biased. Being human, we cannot do this; we *can* strive to do so. Why do you think you should spend years of your life before you can become a judge or lawyer?
God preaches that we shoud love one another, that he cares for everyone as well. That *#%)(#* asshole who calls himself a Rev. should in fact be in a mental institution if it's up to me.

[img]graemlins/madhell.gif[/img]

[img]graemlins/rant.gif[/img] Sorry but this really pisses me off, and I really needed to blow off some steam. Klu Klux Klan is just another example of some sick ass people who have no dignity or respect. Egocentric to the bone!

[Timber Loftis]

Barry Yon Sprout: And personally I find your second point (about wearing intentions on our sleeves) a little bit irrelevant. I was talking about hate being preached against the materially innocent and thus harming them.

Actually, I think you just showed the point I was making. If you don't wear your feelings on your sleeve, where is the HARM?? If you aren't over-emotional, you won't be emotionally distressed. What other harm could there be? Please speak to this -- define the harm.

Once you limit the speech YOU don't like, be prepared for the other side to try and do the same. Because it is a value judgment, you cannot substitute your version for theirs.

Perhaps these people feel they are doing good. It is, after all, perfectly acceptible to believe that homosexuality is disallowed by the bible and will add in sending you to hell -- that is a fair interpretation of the text. Not the only one, but a fair one. Millions of people all over the world believe it. By openly damning this gay man, perhaps they intend to save others from the path they see as evil -- perhaps they are only trying to save souls as Jesus wanted them to. Why not allow them to preach it from a soapbox? If it's so wrong, people won't listen or will boo and hiss. That's the way it goes.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Perhaps these people feel they are doing good. It is, after all, perfectly acceptible to believe that homosexuality is disallowed by the bible and will add in sending you to hell -- that is a fair interpretation of the text. Not the only one, but a fair one. Millions of people all over the world believe it. By openly damning this gay man, perhaps they intend to save others from the path they see as evil -- perhaps they are only trying to save souls as Jesus wanted them to. Why not allow them to preach it from a soapbox? If it's so wrong, people won't listen or will boo and hiss. That's the way it goes.

While it may be acceptable to believe the Bible speaks against homosexuality, it is not acceptable to present this message in the manner Phelps does. Jesus always preached that Christians should "hate the sin, but love the sinner". There is no love in Phelps message - only hate. There is also no offer of redemption from sin, only punishment. That simply isn't the way God works.

As for the proposed monument, I can't agree with Phelp's logic that it has to be allowed since the park also contains a monument to the 10 Commandments. The 10 C's are a transcription from the Bible - Phelp's proposed monument is an interpretation of the Bible. Two completely different things. Somebody already mentioned the KKK. If Phelp's were allowed to put his monument up, then groups like the KKK would have every right to erect monuments of their own expressing thier messages of hate and bigotry.

As for the "Christian authorities" stripping Phelp's of his position, I'm afraid it doesn't work that way. The Pope and Cardinals are part of the Catholic church - Rev. Phelp's isn't. For what it's worth, his message of hate is condemned by official religious organizations.

As Cloudy already mentioned, there are a few bad apples in every bunch...and Rev. Phelp's is a bad apple of the worst stripe.