More hate :(

[Rokenn]

Minister seeks anti-gay shrine
Wyo. marker would cite Shepard's death

By Jim Hughes
Denver Post Staff Writer
Excerpt:
To commemorate the fifth anniversary of gay college student Matthew Shepard's gruesome death, the Rev. Fred Phelps wants to erect what he calls an "absolutely beautiful" monument in Shepard's hometown of Casper, Wyo.
About 6 feet tall and 3 1/2 feet wide, Phelps' monument would bear a brass plaque reading: "Matthew Shepard entered Hell October 12, 1998, at age 21 in defiance of God's solemn warning: 'Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination.' Leviticus 18:22."

Shepard died in a Fort Collins hospital five days after two men lured him from a Laramie bar, drove him to a remote spot outside of town, robbed him, beat him and left him for dead.

[ 10-07-2003, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: Rokenn ]

[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.

[ 10-07-2003, 12:50 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Maelakin]

If he wants to erect the statue in front of his home, he should be allowed to do as he pleases.

However, under no circumstances should anything religous in nature be erect on property that is not privately owned. For instance, the monument bearing the ten commandments should be removed. This country is based upon separation between religion and state. The state (Including all properties owned) should not have anything related to religion.

This is actually a small part of a larger issue in America. "In God We Trust" is all over government buildings and on the currency. Where is the separation between religion and the state I ask?

[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!

[Indemaijinj]

From a worldly civic point of view: Isn't slander and libel illegal? Doesn't people generally consider it bad form to speak ill of the dead?


From a religious (christian) point of view: Haven't God warned us not to make judgements on his behalf?

[Chewbacca]

I wonder how many more murders this hate-shrine may inspire?

What about God's solemn law: "Thou Shall not kill" Seems far more fitting for the 'occassion' being 'honored'.

Reading the rest of the article is very interesting. It seems this so called "Reverend" has a habit of going to funerals of gay people holding up placards that say "God hates fags".

This part of the article I find interesting with regard to the legality of the monument:

But Phelps says it doesn't matter whether city officials happen to like him or what he stands for. The former Topeka, Kan., lawyer, who was disbarred in 1979 for ethical breaches, said that when it comes to the monument, the law is on his side. A decision in a Utah free-speech case by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver last year gives city officials in Casper little choice in the matter, he said. Because a monument bearing the Ten Commandments has been in City Park since 1965, his monument must be allowed there, too, he said. In July 2002, the 10th Circuit ruled that governments that allow statements like the Ten Commandments to be posted on public property must permit all other messages, too. To get around the ruling, the local chapter of the group that donated Casper's Ten Commandments monument, the Fraternal Order of the Eagles, wrote a letter Monday to city officials, requesting its monument be returned. "I know there are several people in town who would rather see it stay in the park, but it's causing too much friction," said Herschel Nickerson, secretary of the Fraternal Order of Eagles, Aerie No. 306. "So, to help solve the problem, we are offering to take the monument back." But Phelps said it was too late for the Eagles' offer to help the city duck his application. "If they had done that before we gave them notice that we intended to erect this monument, they may have had no problem," he said. "But when they do this for the sole purpose of keeping our message out of that park, then you run into" First Amendment issues. If the city keeps the Ten Commandments in City Park, Phelps will have a strong legal argument, said Brian Barnard, a Salt Lake City civil-rights attorney who was involved in the lawsuit that produced last year's 10th Circuit decision. But if the Eagles take back their monument, the legal door through which Phelps hopes to bring his anti-gay message will close, Barnard said.

[Rokenn]

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*

[Barry the Sprout]

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?

This is just my opinion but I personally think its wrong to hide behind religion as a justification for anything that would otherwise be considered unacceptable. Is it wrong for Christians to preach hate against a group because of a religious conviction? Yes - its still preaching hate against the materially innocent. Is it wrong for women to be stoned to death in Islamic countries for adultery? Yes, because taking a human life is wrong no matter what the reason.

I'm sorry, but for me there is no two ways about this.

[Maelakin]

Barry the Sprout Is it wrong for Christians to preach hate against a group because of a religious conviction?

No, it isn't wrong for them to preach hate because people should be free to speak their minds. Everyone has the choice to listen if they so choose. A person speaking their opinion does not hurt anyone. It does become wrong when someone decides to physically exert their opinion on another.

Barry the Sprout Is it wrong for women to be stoned to death in Islamic countries for adultery?

This is wrong because it is enforcing someone else's opinion on another. What may be wrong for one person is not necessarily wrong for another. I believe this correspondes with another topic in this forum today.

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by Maelakin: quote: Barry the Sprout Is it wrong for Christians to preach hate against a group because of a religious conviction?

No, it isn't wrong for them to preach hate because people should be free to speak their minds. Everyone has the choice to listen if they so choose. A person speaking their opinion does not hurt anyone. It does become wrong when someone decides to physically exert their opinion on another.[/QUOTE]Words may not hurt in the same way the sticks and stones do but they nonetheless are quite harmful to most people, when used maliciously. Preaching hate against people enforces a bigoted view of that person across society in general. In other words unless people stop saying gays will go to hell for their sexuality it is unlikely we will ever see an end to legal and social discrimination of gay people. Discrimination which does physically harm people every day by the way.