More hate :(

[Maelakin]

Cerek the Barbaric That simply isn't the way God works.

This is an opinion. No one has ever met God and furthermore no one can even prove that God does in fact exist. As such, you cannot stand by this statement because no one knows. The fact could be that God does in fact work this way, assuming the entity does indeed exist.

Cerek the Barbaric 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.

Phelp’s logic is indeed flawless. The Bible and its teachings are nothing more than an interpretation. If he interprets the Bible to include the message he suggests, that is his prerogative. It is not a fact that the 10 Commandments (or the Bible for that matter) were written by a divine deity, and as such, if you choose to display one you must allow the other.

Cerek the Barbaric For what it's worth, his message of hate is condemned by official religious organizations.

Statements like this always seem to get under my skin. What makes a religion “official”? No one religion has any more relevance when compared to another. A religion that I brew up in my head is just as “official” as one that has existed for thousands of years. Religion is an opinion, nothing more.

Don’t get me wrong, I do think he is wrong for wanting to put up the monument in question, but not because of any religious reasoning. The only reason I see is because it would be on public property. I’m a firm believer that anything religious in nature should stay at the home and centers for worship and remain separated from all forms of state.

[Timber Loftis]

I second Maelakin's post. I mean, so what if his Christianity is different than yours? He's allowed to believe as he chooses, as are his followers. Call it Baptists, call it Xvartese, it doesn't matter -- Religious freedom means RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. Free speech means the right to express it.

So long as it does not violate the constitution, no limits should be placed on speech -- including hate speech. Hate speech is such a stupid term anyway. Is Al Franken hate speech? What about Rush? Ariana Huffington? "Hate speech" means "normal radical view speech that the speaker wasn't smart enough to couch in PC terminology."

[Thoran]

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: 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.

A dangerous position, becuase there are a lot of people out there who are offended by just about everything. How long before something YOU say is seen by someone else as bigoted? Do you want to live in a world where the fringe element is able to drive norms simply by being "offended" anytime someone says something that doesn't agree with their twisted view of reality? Freedom of speech applies ESPECIALLY to those who've got opinions the rest of us don't like, because once they're silenced... we're next.

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: But what if it is what the community really believes? Are they not allowed to believe in the bible? Are they not allow to state that belief? Where do we draw the line? Of course, in a public place, this may be a 1st Amendment violation of the establishment clause due to its religious connotations. However, under current Wyo. and Federal law, a simple "This guy died because he was a horrible fag" would be allowed. No religious references, and there is, as of yet, NO FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION for sexuality. Weird, ain't it? BTW -- courts reading such constitutional protection into the constitution is RIGHT OUT in my opinion*. If we want to protect these people we should do what we did with skin color and Amend the Constitution and pass Statutes. Judges making up things in the constitution out of thin air is getting on my nerves. * Such protections may be explicitly stated or implied in a State constitution. State constitutions, most of which have been re-passed in the last 40 years, often go further than the federal constitution.

Yeah they're allowed to believe but when they are unsympathetic to someone's death and disrespectful, it should make people wonder what kind of stuff are they believing and practicing. IMO, I think when any man or woman who says they do things based on what they're religion believes, they have no individual consciousness or rather have given it up to others and not question their own institution. That is blind and careless. If an authority of their religion tells them to go jump in a lake, would they do it or question & not do it.

[Maelakin]

GForce, I agree with you in that others should question this man's motives and direction. However, we cannot stop him from doing as he will based upon a popular opinion that he is in the wrong. The fact remains, he is still entitled to his rights and we cannot and should not take those away from him.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Maelakin: quote: Cerek the Barbaric That simply isn't the way God works.

This is an opinion. No one has ever met God and furthermore no one can even prove that God does in fact exist. As such, you cannot stand by this statement because no one knows. The fact could be that God does in fact work this way, assuming the entity does indeed exist.[/QUOTE]I can and certainly do stand by this statement, because it is based directly on the teachings of Jesus Christ in the New Testament. According to the Bible, there is only one "unforgivable" sin - and that is the total rejection of God. ALL other sins can be forgiven due to the sacrifice Jesus made on the Cross. To say that all homosexuals automacally go to Hell denies the message of the Cross. God is a forgiving God. All He asks is that we confess and repent of our sins. If we do so sincerely, then we are forgiven of our sins.

Whether you believe in God's existence or not is a moot point. What matters is that Rev. Phelp's believes in Him. He also draws his message from the same Bible I do, except that his message directly contradicts the teachings of Love and Forgiveness that were the central core of Jesus Christ's ministry.

So, yes, I can say that God doesn't work that way - because that is what the Bible says also.

Originally posted by Maelakin: quote: Cerek the Barbaric For what it's worth, his message of hate is condemned by official religious organizations.

Statements like this always seem to get under my skin. What makes a religion “official”? No one religion has any more relevance when compared to another. A religion that I brew up in my head is just as “official” as one that has existed for thousands of years. Religion is an opinion, nothing more.[/QUOTE]By "official religion", I was referring to various Christian denominations that have established headquarters, governing bodies, heirarchy's, and constitutions listing their goals, missions, and code of conduct. And I only mention the Christian denominations because Phelp's claims to be Christian. I was referring to a remark made by another poster asking why Rev. Phelps couldn't be stripped of his position and I was pointing out that no one really has the authority to do that. But the governing bodies of those he would consider his peers have spoken out against against his message of hate.

I was in no way trying to imply that Christianity is the only "official religion". Scientology, Wiccan, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, etc are all established religions in their own right. However, since Phelp's has aligned himself with Christianity, I felt it was relevant to point out the opinion of other Christian denominations.

[Maelakin]

While I understand and can see from your point of view, you seem to be missing my point.

Based upon the teachings you have received in your life you equate God to be forgiving. Your basis for this statement comes from the New Testament as you have stated, referencing the teachings of Jesus.

What you do not know is how Phelps interprets the Bible, the New Testament included. No individual, including you, has the right to say he is wrong in his opinion or perception of what may be truth. Jesus is not standing before all of you stating what the New Testament contains.

Another point of view that one can take would be if you stood by your decision to be a homosexual in life and accept the consequences it brings, then why in death would you shun your chosen path? With that notion in mind one can conceivably come to the conclusion that the homosexual person will indeed go to hell. Here is where the contradiction occurs. Religion, no matter how you look at it, is nothing more than an opinion, and since opinions are neither based on fact or tangible results, but the educated guess one creates based upon their perception of a situation, you cannot inequitably say that your previous statement is 100% true.

I myself do not support nor deny the existence of God. I simply state that with the information I have been provided I cannot choose a path and accept my decision. Therefore, I will abstain for either conviction until a time when I am either capable of making that distinction or until death when I will have the question answered.

According the Bible, I am not damned to hell. The bible as you stated says the only true sin is the total rejection of God. So when I die I should just be able to say, “Wow, guess the big guy does exist,” and be able to walk right into heaven. I most definitely will not deny something that sits in front of me.

Anyways, this has taken a large detour from the original conversation. What is trying to be conveyed here is that no one truly knows what the other is thinking, and your perception of the situation could conceivably be different when compared to that of the instigator. So we either allow total freedom of speech (religion) or we do not allow any freedom at all. There is no middle ground and we cannot turn to morals, ethics, or beliefs when trying to determine the validity of something someone wishes to say.

On a last note, anyone citing the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus should never say someone is wrong in their convictions. According to the book used for citation, only god may pass judgment on another.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Maelakin: According the Bible, I am not damned to hell. The bible as you stated says the only true sin is the total rejection of God. So when I die I should just be able to say, “Wow, guess the big guy does exist,” and be able to walk right into heaven. I most definitely will not deny something that sits in front of me.

Not true, in fact Christians disagree on this. In the Baptist church, for instance, you have the option the the deathbed last-minute hail marry "save" -- "Jesus, forgive me, I accept you."

For a Catholic, however, you can't get away with that. If you weren't baptised and confirmed you ain't going to heaven -- the best you'll get is Purgatory. Same text -- but two sects interpret it very differently. For a Catholic, you ain't going to heaven without putting in the time and doing the paperwork.

Remind me to tell you sometime how this procedural focus of the religion leads Catholics and Jews to be innately good lawyers. It's true, no lie.

Originally posted by Maelakin: GForce, I agree with you in that others should question this man's motives and direction. However, we cannot stop him from doing as he will based upon a popular opinion that he is in the wrong. The fact remains, he is still entitled to his rights and we cannot and should not take those away from him.

Hi Maelakin. I didn't mention that we should stop him but rather just question his actions IF you or anyone deem his actions as unsympathetic and disrespectful to the dead man & his family. I think its rather disrespecting and uncaring. Now it would be a different matter if he had tried to harm or try to force his belief on someone. That would and should be stopped. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Maelakin]

Timber Loftis For a Catholic, however, you can't get away with that. If you weren't baptized and confirmed you ain't going to heaven -- the best you'll get is Purgatory. Same text -- but two sects interpret it very differently. For a Catholic, you ain't going to heaven without putting in the time and doing the paperwork.

I suppose I should have included this information. I am baptized and confirmed by the Roman Catholic Church. Baptism came at birth before I was capable of cognitive thinking, and confirmation came at the heels of being 14 and the threat of permanent grounding by the parents.

So, my loophole stands complete!