Discussion

• March 23, 2006

  8:32 AM

  Devine Justice writes:

  God Hates Sin, Period! Revelations says-Hot or Cold. No lukewarmers. Homosexuality for a Christian is a perversion. St. Augustine once stated-"Hate the Sin, Love the Sinner." Homosexuality is a grevious sin against Jesus, and His Kingdom. Those in sin can't understand the word of God, and those who understand the consequences for sin know the suffering which will come: Heaven or Hell, Choose!!

• March 23, 2006

  8:46 AM

  Fine Christian Values writes:

  I'll choose hell GLADLY if heaven is going to full of hate-filled fake Christians like you, "Devine Justice"

• March 23, 2006

  8:58 AM

  Michael F. Crowe writes:

  The myth of God belongs in the literature of 'fantastic' fiction, not in the reality of life and living, and for Phelps and his absurd followers to be fantasized by death is not puzzling, but is most certainly an insult to the living.
  

• March 23, 2006

  9:13 AM

  MensaMember writes:

  I am usually on the side of free speech. But there are some places where such protests just don't belong. I wouldn't want protesters jumping up in the middle of a movie or a play or my kid's Christmas program, and I sure as hell don't want protesters in the middle of a funeral for a loved one - military or not. The 500 foot rule is something everyone can live (and die) with. No fundamental God (or State) given rights are forfeited.

• March 23, 2006

  9:22 AM

  Tracey writes:

  I don't think our founding fathers had this kind of speech in mind when they wrote the constitution.Today in our world you can say anything no matter how vile or hateful or harm it does and call it free speach.This is such a sad world today.We live in a world of turmoil and hate.Laws are written for just about everything except to protect the innocent.Free speach is free speach we just have to live with hateful people spewing their mean evil hate freedom of speach in the name of a god....god is not everywhere evidently.

• March 23, 2006

  10:02 AM

  Anonymous writes:

  Tracey, What does "speach" mean? It may be free, but you don't have to butcher it!

• March 23, 2006

  10:06 AM

  Greg writes:

  PLEASE don't believe that all Christians, or all Baptists, are like this guy. We're not. That guy is a psycho who obviously wants to start a cult but only has his family as followers. The guy is a nut-case, not a follower of God or the teachings of Jesus

• March 23, 2006

  10:08 AM

  Anonymous writes:

  I wonder how the Cindy Sheehan lot is voting on this one. I imagine they love the homosexuals, but their own actions run counter to what these so-called pastors are doing. Just wondering....

• March 23, 2006

  10:27 AM

  Dona writes:

  "Those in sin can't understand the word of God, and those who understand the consequences for sin know the suffering which will come: Heaven or Hell, Choose!!"

  And it's words like those that turn so many of us off to organized religion!!!!

  If God is a loving God then how can he/she condone such acts of hatred against any of his children??

  If you don't believe in homosexualiy then don't practice it.

  Maybe the Homosexuals and their families should come protest at the funerals of these self-rightoues Christians...a taste of their own medicine might be in order.

• March 23, 2006

  11:11 AM

  Jim Mitchell writes:

  As one who is a commited Christian, I find Phelps and his zombies both offensive and dangerously misrepresentative of the character and conduct of those who supposedly know Jesus.

  I challenge anyone out there to give us either a historical or scriptural example of Jesus, the Apostles, or the early church acting in such a manner. Go on - I'll wait.........

• March 23, 2006

  11:25 AM

  Greg writes:

  I think Christians should protest this guy to show that a real Christian does not act in the manner that Phelps does, they try to follow in the footsteps of Jesus- who would never do something like Phelps is doing. It saddens me to see someone act in such a horrible way in the name of God. Phelps is misguided and probably missing a little something upstairs.

• March 23, 2006

  11:42 AM

  RonT writes:

  Once again the rights of all Americans are being diluted because of a few fringe elements out there, and what's worse, most of you will allow it - no, demand - that it happen! (BTW - I think the preacher and his homophobic flock are real idiots - unfortunately, they have the right to be so....)

  Most of you don't deserve the freedoms we have. Why is anyone worrying about a civil war in Iraq when it's pretty darn plain that we're going to have one here within a decade - between those who still believe in liberty and those who don't. The only 'good' thing is, those who aren't willing to stand up for liberty now will most likely be too spineless to stand in the way of true patriots in the future. They'll sit at home and hope "the authorities" protect them.

  "If it spares just one person from hearing anything unpleasant." - how sophomoric!
  

• March 23, 2006

  11:57 AM

  Shelly Viescas writes:

  I really don't care what Phelps radical christian views are. He is a black mark on society and a wonderful example of the portion of this society which would take all OUR freedoms away in order to spew more hatred. What is so "christian" about that????

• March 23, 2006

  12:03 PM

  Slick writes:

  "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone" Does this mean that Phelps and his followers are without sin. He and his family have made themselves out to be sinless. What a hypocrite.

• March 23, 2006

  12:21 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  What does homosexuality have to to with disrupting funerals of our brave soldiers? Since most of Phelps church members are family this MUST be a case of inbreeding! Isn't that against the laws of God also???

• March 23, 2006

  1:21 PM

  Tigre writes:

  I have to wonder why no one was this concerned when the Phelps gang was protesting only at the funerals of gay people. Now that he has taken the show on the road to a graveside near "you," it has become problematic. No one outside of the gay community seemed to care about this type of protest before. It is sad that they weep now. Has any one thought they are staging these shows to further margianlize the GLBTQ community, not because they truly believe in what they are saying? Phelps and his ilk have every right to protest as they do, but they should be made to do so from a very respectable distance. Perhaps then they will fade into the dust.

• March 23, 2006

  1:30 PM

  Happy Hetero writes:

  Phelps apparently is just antagonizes people to try and create a situation where his group can sue people or municipalities. So the only God that Phelps is really following is the all mighty dollar. I think homosexuals provide a needed canary in a cage for society. Once a person or group attacks homosexuals it is just a flag to society that this person or group are jerks. This is just like bullies in school. They attack the weak to make themselves feel strong. If they were men they would try this protest at a military installation without police protection for their sorry butts. They will all probably die in a van while driving to harass someone’s family since they feel they are immune to higher powers like God or karma or whatever you call it. Mark my words, God does exist and they will answer.

• March 23, 2006

  1:43 PM

  JB writes:

  Phelps is a moron, and his followers are vile, yet we cannot bastardize the First Amendment because we disagree with his values. This is the same reason the ACLU will defend a Nazi in court...much more is lost is we begin stifiling our countries basic values.

• March 23, 2006

  2:14 PM

  James Blatter writes:

  The founding fathers had exactly this kind of speech in mind when they wrote the constitution. The First Amendment was written to protect overt/seditious speech. While I find Phelps and anyone who endorses them corrupting Jesus's ministry. Westboro Baptist Church members are using their protests in a political way regardless of how contemptible the message.

• March 23, 2006

  2:47 PM

  David writes:

  Hi all -

  First, a quick comment about the 1st amendment: it says that a person can say whatever they want without fear of imprisonment from the government. It doesn't say that private persons, businesses, or other entities have to put up with it, or that the person making the statements is protected from losing their job, the respect of their peers, or anthing else. There are consequences to things that people say.

  Second, these "protestors" are bigots and hate-mongors, plain and simple. No, I am not gay. I am married for 23 years and have 3 great kids. Also, my religious affiliation is no longer Christian, purely by choice. I harbor no negative thoughts or feelings for those who are Christian, or those who are or aren't anything else. And, I do understand that the view these zealots have, is not typical of the views of the Christians that I know.

  The God I know, encourages His children (us) to follow His teachings, to learn from our mistakes, and to help others when we can, and as we are able. If homosexuallity is a choice (and it may well be in a majority of instances), God has said He wants us to make the choice that doesn't engage in it (Man shall not lay down with man as he does with woman; it is an abomination unto the Lord). An abomination is to engage in something in a way that is different from what the design provided.

  Notice that God's command doesn't include women - there are reasons for this. Being that this is a public forum, very limited wording can be tastefully used, but the adults here should be able to figure things out. Offspring, the possible result from F/M relations, is needed for continuation of the species. The fact that it can be pleasureable is a gift from our Creator. Any other connection of partners will not perpetuate the race, but only one is taboo - M/M.

  Again, if it is mostly a choice, then those who engage in it will be held accountable for their decisions, not you or me. Simply because we find it detestable and/or disgusting (or other descriptors) doesn't give us the right to pass judgement.

  I have had several gay friends and work-mates in the past, and when the subject comes up, I calmly explain that my concern is for their well-being - meaning their physical and mental health. Most believe after a time that it is simply "who they are" and they feel helpless to fight it.

  I suggest that God isn't interested in throwing as many of us into Hell as He possibly can. Further, I'm very thankful that He will stand in judgement and compassion at the end, and not Fred Phelps or his ilk.

  And by the way, for Phelps and company to interject their hateful rhetoric on ANY family during such a trying time, should show the rest of us just how much hate, anger, and unenlightened belief runs through his being.

• March 23, 2006

  2:58 PM

  Just another writes:

  David, good point.

  I find it extremely disturbing that common courtesy is so disregarded and abused that the government has to step in. When my father died in 1982, we had to travel 10 miles to the cementary. I remember riding with my uncle, who became quite annoyed with few individuals who didn't slow down when we passed. Nowadays, you can't get people to slow down for emergency vehicles. Nowadays, "chrisitians" protest funerals to get their message across and call it "free speech". Nowadays, politicians bicker like children and won't unite for the sake of children. Somebody tell me what in the world has happened to us as a society that we can't show a little courtesy to each other.

• March 23, 2006

  3:03 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  "But there are some places where such protests just don't belong. "

  AMEN brother!

  Thank God for the actions of the Patriot Guard Riders who protect military families.
  This kind of free speech I can do without!

  Legislators, please protect our grieving families, somehow.

• March 23, 2006

  3:22 PM

  Holier Than Thou writes:

  I don't quite understand the connection between dead soldiers and homosexuals. Fundamentalists like Phelps or James Dobson should not be taken seriously. When Bible passages are decomposed, they may be used to justify routine dishonesty, rape, robbery, assault, oppression, murder, and genocide. This is the stock-in-trade of fear-based religions like fundamentalist Christianity. When fundies see that they are not being taken seriously, they resort to provocation. I suppose that's why they've turned their attention from homosexuals to soldiers' families.

  The ongoing tragedy of America is that many people are taken in by religions that are not much different from Phelps' s although they may appear so on the outside. There is much talk about a god of love, but their deeds only prove a god of fear, greed, intolerance, war, oppression, and hatred.
  

• March 23, 2006

  4:01 PM

  Proud Veteran writes:

  Phelps is an America hating communist, as is every one of his pathetic goon squad. None of these creeps would serve their country for five minutes.

• March 23, 2006

  4:19 PM

  Love Facts writes:

  "Devine Justice", ha ha, like most fundies can't even spell an important word on their favorite topic, God.

  BTW, eleven of thirteen kids of Fred Phelps are attorneys. They are not stupid, regardless of their beliefs. Notice that they seldom if ever break any laws about public right of ways, etc. I would like to know where this inbred church gets so much money to travel around the country on.

  "David", please note that the scientific evidence increases almost daily that homosexuality is NOT a choice, but something hormonally determined in the womb. I've never met one homosexual who has told me, "Well, when I was fourteen I decided to be gay." Perhaps acknowledge the bent, but not become. Also, David, the reason women aren't mentioned in the admonition you quote is simply because women didn't count in that society. Also, it was believed that the male semen contained little itty-bitty humans that used the womb as an incubator. Thus, W/W sex wasn't a threat to the tribal existence.

  Jesus, of course, never weighs in on homosexuality, or for that matter, abortion. That Christians can get so riled up on one issue that barely rates a few mentions in the Bible, and not at all on abortion, is a puzzle. Then, of course, The Trinity isn't in the Bible, either.......

  Oh, "Devine", please reread Revelations 1:1 again. Notice that it is a letter to the scattered churches concerning events "that will soon come to pass." One thousand, nine hundred, ninety four years (give or take a few) since that book was written and none of it has come to pass. And please don't say, well, God's "soon" is not a human "soon." It's allegedly a letter for humans; would God speak German to Frenchmen?

  Oh, about legislation to stop these morons. It IS all about First Amendment rights, no matter how vile it is. Once we say that "this" speech is an exception, then comes another and another and pretty soon we're living in a totalitarian state.

  Oh......

  A lover and follower of Jesus

• March 23, 2006

  4:33 PM

  ProudVeteran writes:

  Phelps and his America-hating crazies are no better than communists in my book. Not one of them has spent 5 minutes serving his country, unless you assume that country is Russia.

• March 23, 2006

  5:25 PM

  T2 writes:

  Every sin is equal in God's eyes. None "count more" than others. Isn't it convenient that 90% of society can count homosexuality as the biggest sin, the one for sure that will put you in hell? What about the sin of gluttony? There are some pretty porky protesters out there. What about the married man still having sex with his wife and NOT having any more children? For those Bible scholars out there, count how many times the Bible warns against passing judgement vs. homosexuality in the old and the new testament. U.S. government btw is not the same as God's laws. It is a free country. Free to protest (for attention) and free to love other consenting adults.

• March 23, 2006

  6:33 PM

  David writes:

  Hi "Love Facts" -

  Until they figure out a way to add tonal qualities to blogs, we will be not entirely understood in the points we're attempting to make. Just for clarity, I wasn't trying to imply science hadn't made any inroads to proving/disproving choice, but rather, that there is no way we can know for sure. And even if we did, it isn't our place to condemn for choices. As God tells Ezekiel, (paraphrased), "Every person stands for their sins - no man can assume the sins of another" - so if certain things are sins, then it's got to be up to someone far wiser and more full of compassion and understanding than me to figure out - boy, am I ever glad about that.

  Now, on two other points, I will have to disagree with you:

  1) The Torah, in which the referenced Scripture is found, was given to Moses who led the Israelites from Egypt. I can assure you that women were not prohibited from F/F relations because they were considered less in that society. A families entire lineage is traced through the woman's side of the family, and not the man's. Further, the Jewish book of mysticism, known as Kaballah, the main book of which is called the Zohar, explains that women are on a higher spiritual plain of existance than are men. They are, if you will, closer to being angelic, than men. There are other renderings in that book that expound on details that encompass why F/F relations are not prohibited, but we cannot go into them here.

  2) If F/F relations were all that the woman was interested in permitting, that would certainly threaten the tribal existance every bit as much as M/M.

  
  One of the things I have put a fair amount of time into, is whether or not God intends for many things to be tests for us, to give us the opportunity to make correct decisions. For example, I really enjoy a good shot or so of chilled scotch whisky from time-to-time. I make a very thoughtful decision about how much to have, and in my younger days, perhaps I didn't cap the bottle soon enough at times. Thankfully, I have never let it take over my life - but some people have.

  Is it possible that other things, homosexuality among them, are things we should say "no" to - and some succeed and some do not? The list of those things is huge - for example, infidelity, booze, drugs, stealing, murder, etc., just to name a couple. We're expected to refuse to give in to the urge to do them.

  But since infidelity and homosexuality both involve sex, let's compare them for a minute - are either necessary for life? No - a person will not die without them, as they would if they refused to eat or drink. Could they be things that are not decisions, per se, but that we are expected to refuse to engage in just the same?

  Just food for thought, as there is, of course, no knowing the answer at this time.

• March 23, 2006

  11:28 PM

  Dona writes:

  David

  How wonderfully well put. "Every person stands for their sins - no man can assume the sins of another" I'm right there with you.

• March 24, 2006

  9:20 AM

  Holier Than Thou writes:

  Judging from the comments here and the reaction in the legislature, I reckon that Westboro Baptist really got our goat. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater by trampling on the First Amendment. Just go down to the Capital and physically administer them a beating if you can't help yourself.

  If you want to engage in a theological discussion, don't do it with a bunch of screaming morons kicking our flag around. Do it with me!

  Here's a question: what if there is no judgement? Jesus taught that those who judge others will be measured against their own standards. I find this teaching to be a resounding indictment of hypocrisy.

  Observation shows that when folks die, they all die the same. Life functions cease but nothing else happens. Sinners and saints all go to the same place. No one bursts into flame or goes screaming into the black vortex no matter how bad they were. The pain from nerve stimulation and mental distress must stop because those processes no longer function.

  What if our theology of final judgement is all wrong? Perhaps it is merely a manifestation of selfishness and fear imposed upon religion. The selfishness comes from wanting payment for real or imagined wrongs done to us. The fear comes from assuming that people must be restrained from doing evil, that they are born with an inherently evil nature and must be frightened into doing good.

  Hell is a myth but one that we create for ourselves right here on Earth.
  

• March 24, 2006

  9:28 AM

  Anonymous writes:

  They protest at gay funerals, they protest at soldiers funerals, they protest at the state capitol, when will they protest YOU and ME. Remember Madalyn Murray O'Hair and her group of athiests? As a society we have gone from one extreme to another - and this is a FREE country. We let these people decide what is in our best interest and do nothing about it...WAKE UP AMERICA or we will have no freedom.

• March 24, 2006

  9:44 AM

  Anonymous writes:

  Free speech is one thing; cutting down people who are different or that our defending our country is another. Isn't there a limit to what constitutes free speech. Maybe the homosexuals and soldiers should picket their "Church Services". Turn about is fair play!!!

• March 24, 2006

  10:40 AM

  G-D Hate Phelps writes:

  Someone needs to put Fred Phelps and his mongrel inbred family out of our misery. Either silencing them with legislation or some other means is called for. I'm not a man of violence, but if they were to show up at the funeral of a friend of mine, there really wouldn't be much of them left to scrape into a baggie.

  Now, to be more serious. There is a time and place for everything, and funerals are not the place for protests. This legislation should be passed and signed into law.

• March 24, 2006

  11:00 AM

  Datha Nation writes:

  Don't give groups any news coverage, all it does is to light up
  new fires in the media. They eat & sleep for news coverage, anyone kicking an American flag in protest should've been arrested. Next time
  please no news coverage or pictures, even if they have a right to
  protest.

• March 24, 2006

  12:02 PM

  DS writes:

  There is a time and a place for everything. A funeral is a celebration and mourning for the living to grieve the dead.

  Similar to the courtroom incident where the guy wore an offensive t-shirt and got jailed: free speech should be restricted in nuetral places. I feel that a funeral or courtroom is a couple of examples of those places where nuetrality should be enforced and respected.

• March 24, 2006

  1:08 PM

  Massman writes:

  Either believe in Christ or to the left, in hell for eternity. Oh, yes, God mentions Hell-Matthew 23v13, and onwards. Christ clearly gave signs as to how to attain salvation. St. Paul in his epistle states-"Work out your salvation with fear and trembling." I see no fear in America. Taunts, jeers, protests against those who strive to do his work here on earth, defending Christ. Work out your salvation, You Hypocrites. Oh, yes, Jesus used that language too-to instruct sinners. Homosexuality is a grevious sin, and evidence points to this behavior as endangering society rather than uplifting it.
  As far as freedom of expression, that's 1st amendment. Can't touch that in the USA.

• March 24, 2006

  1:15 PM

  Phillip writes:

  Holier than thou-You must be brain dead. You're the myth. To not believe in Jesus Christ as your Savior, that's myth. Remember this-"You die once, and then there's judgment." When you stand before Jesus, remember that. That's REAL!!

• March 24, 2006

  1:25 PM

  Mary writes:

  The issue for me is not free speech - it is - as many have pointed out - the intrusion into what should be a private time for the family & friends of the deceased. (I would no more think of crashing a funeral than I would a wedding - when will these folks feel the need to pop up there too?) I did hear an interesting suggestion by a member of law enforcement from NM who has come into contact with these people in the past - they used disorderly conduct laws to get the family to move along. The law enforcement folks also wrote down the names of the women in the "family" who chose to bring children (apparently initimating that the family might be prosecuted for child endangerment). I like those 2 tactics - if these idiots want to spew their hatred, they are protected by the 1st Amendment - but they certainly have no right to invade a private function.

• March 24, 2006

  2:24 PM

  CG writes:

  Since I agree with everything said about the absurdity of the message spoken by the Phelps family I'll pose another question. A lot of people have refered to funerals as not being appropriate places of protest. While I agree wholeheartedly with these statements, what are people's opinions regarding the statements made at Rosa Parks' funeral recently? Couldn't some of the comments aimed at President Bush be considered a form of protest? Would people support the government suppressing those people's speech?

• March 24, 2006

  3:20 PM

  Tom writes:

  The last I checked God hasn’t given a briefing for quire some time. These people have no idea what the word of God is, they have no idea.

  The screwy thing is, the more they protest, the more normal people are going to support the ‘gay agenda’. They are just working against their own beliefs.

  When one of these protesters dies, I would like to protest their funeral….just to give them a taste of their own medicine…hopefully that will be soon.
  

• March 24, 2006

  4:25 PM

  Levon writes:

  Phelps and his family should be covered by the 1st Amendment to say whatever they want and the funeral of whomever they choose. What should NOT be covered by the 1st Amendment however, is media coverage of this joker. We can twist the obscenity laws enough to cover Phelps, right? Please? The only way to stop the religous fanatics from taking over our country is to ignore them. It's getting harder and harder though, I'll admit that.

  "We are living in dangerously weird times now. Smart people just shrug and admit they're dazed and confused. The only ones left with any confidence at all are the New Dumb. It is the beginning of the end of our world as we know it. Doom is the operative ethic."

  These are the words of the great Hunter S. Thompson, and a quick glance at the news of today makes me want to put a shotgun in my mouth like he did. Esteemed Republican-leaning op-ed columnist Peggy Noonan on 9/11: "If you are of a certain cast of mind, it is of course meaningful that the face of the Evil One seemed to emerge with a roar from the furnace that was Tower One." Oh yeah... Noonan wrote this doomsday nonsense in the WALL STREET JOURNAL. She also made sure to remind her readers that a "cross" emerged unharmed amid the wreckage. Ol' Dubya has really pushed the David Koresh mindset (illustrated by many posters on this blog) into the mainstream. Former GOP Strategist Kevin Phillips says that "a lot of Americans have stopped worrying about the economy because they're waiting for the Second Coming." Even Madonna is attempting to purchase a house overlooking the Sea of Galilee, to get a bird's eye view of the Messiah when he returns.The other day in Cleveland, Bush took 5 minutes to answer a ridiculous question as to whether or not the rise of terrorism was a "sign of the apocalypse." That made-up witch Katherine Harris is running for the Senate in Florida because "God wants her to reclaim America for Christ." A bill co-sponsored by Kansas Senator Sam Brownback called the "Constitution Restoration Act" will effectively transform the United States into a theocracy, where the dictates of a "higher power" can override law. If the act passes, Iraqis will have stronger protection from religious extremism than Americans. You Christians can say what you want about this being a nation founded in "Judeo-Christian traditions." Whatever. "This is the first time in our history that ideology and theoloy hold a monopoly of power in Washington," as Bill Moyers says. Religion should be taxed and you people should be backed way out of the public square. Not all the way out, but enough so that those of us who don't run our lives based on ghost stories and fairy tales can barely hear you.

• March 24, 2006

  4:54 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  Levon on March 24 writes, "a quick glance at the news of today makes me want to put a shotgun in my mouth like ( Hunter S. Thompson) did." - Please, it is your right to go ahead if you really feel that way.

• March 24, 2006

  5:02 PM

  Levon writes:

  Mmmmm... the inability to discern exaggeration and irony... you must be a Christian.

• March 24, 2006

  5:08 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  Dude, I'm agnostic as they come. You are just an idiot that doesn't want to take the time to think of any structural solutions to the problems. You want to rant and whine like a child. Grow up and use your head. Think about a solution and act on it. Which brings us back to the original post...if you want to go ahead. It's just one less mouth for the rest of us to worry about.

• March 24, 2006

  5:18 PM

  Levon writes:

  "Structural solutions?" What does that mean? I don't think I've ever heard that term in my life. "Structural solutions." Funny. The topic on this blog is whether or not Phelps should be covered by the 1st Amendment... I gave my answer to that and then decided to illustrate my point about religion taking over too much public debate in this country. There isn't any real solution to that problem, aside from censorship, which I would never advocate. I just wanted to poke some fun at religous people... because it's Friday afternoon and it's so damn easy. Why are you worried about my mouth? Another ridiculous sentiment. "Dude" - find one of your "structural solutions" to the problem of my mouth.

• March 24, 2006

  5:29 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  Mr Levon,

  You write, "'Structural solutions?' What does that mean? I don't think I've ever heard that term in my life. 'Structural solutions.'

  I'm disappointed in myself because I edited my last post to avoid calling you an idiot twice. I see now that was unneccesary.

  As for the structural solution for the problem of your mouth...I believe you identified that yourself in an earlier post. I only ever agreed with you. Have a great Friday.

• March 24, 2006

  5:39 PM

  Levon writes:

  "I only ever agreed with you." Another brilliant sentence. Some of you Faulkners out there need to learn how to write a little bit better in order to avoid embarrassing yourselves.

• March 27, 2006

  8:35 AM

  David Hakala writes:

  I seldom find myself disagreeing with the ACLU, but on the matter of protests at funerals we part company. Harassing people while they are mourning the death of a loved one is not protected speech.
  
  The First Amendment does not protect all speech. It protects "expressive speech," or speech which is intended to convey a viewpoint. The reason for such protection is to give holders of unpopular opinions the opportunity to persuade others to their viewpoints. No Constitutional interest is served, and speech does not merit protection, if there can be no opportunity to persuade others.
  
  It is absurd to argue that any funeral attendee might join the ranks of those who vilify his loved one and defile a precious memorial service. Therefor, no harm is done to a speaker by protecting funeral attendees from his message.
  
  The courts have long held that even protected speech can be regulated as to its time, place, and manner. If "indecent" speech can be banned from broadcast TV during prime time, then surely speech which indecently disrupts mourning can be banned at and during a funeral. Such a ban need not deprive any speaker of his right to be heard, if you media types do your job.
  
  Media coverage is the sole advantage that funeral protests provide, for it allows the speaker's message to reach listeners who might be persuaded instead of listeners who are surely repulsed. If the Rocky Mountain News is truly concerned about the "stifling" of funeral protestors, then make sure to cover their antics 500 feet from a funeral service one hour before and after said service.
  
  But that would not provide the kind of morbid sensationalism that sells newspapers, would it? The same goes for protests at abortion clinics, which you also support. Your ulterior motive is transparently obvious.
  

• March 27, 2006

  9:31 AM

  T2 writes:

  Thank you David. Perfect!

• March 27, 2006

  10:09 AM

  Brutus Americanus writes:

  As obnoxious as this group's message is, it is still protected under the First Amendment, and should be.

  In order to be a nation with such freedoms, we have to allow any man to speak - symbollically or semantically - anywhere he wants, so long as his methods do not jeopardize the safety of any citizen.

  The price of freedom is the tolerance of the most obnoxious.

• March 27, 2006

  10:27 AM

  T2 writes:

  If we allow free speech, regardless, then why is it that every time someone protests our government, the war, etc. during political speeches or events, they are removed because of one reason or another?

• March 27, 2006

  12:57 PM

  Sorry David writes:

  Sorry to David H. I agreed with everything up to your comparision to an abortion clinic. There is a major difference there. At a funeral, someone has already died. Those who protest at abortion clinics are trying to save someone from being murdered. Bad example.

• March 28, 2006

  9:08 AM

  David Hakala writes:

  Dear "Sorry David:" the 8-foot restriction on abortion protestors' proximity to patients and clinics does not interfere with protestors' free speech rights in any way. It only prevents physical interference and intimidation. Nobody has the right to assault a person who is going about lawful business.