Full Version: Freedom of Religion
Fred Phelps, the fundamental Kansas preacher, protested a Marine's funeral on May 22nd, 2006. This action incited a violent reaction.
Question for debate:
What are the limits to freedom of religion?
Personally, I'm tempted to rip pages out of a Bible, crumple them up and throw them on the ground in front of these people. I have no respect for their warped beliefs.
Question for debate:
What are the limits to freedom of religion?
Personally, I'm tempted to rip pages out of a Bible, crumple them up and throw them on the ground in front of these people. I have no respect for their warped beliefs.
What are the limits to freedom of religion?
I would think that a religion in the United States would have to follow civil laws. In the case of Fred Phelps and his ilk, I would interpret demonstrations at funerals of fallen soldiers to be akin to "fighting words". As such, those adherents who held signs and yelled slogans that were offensive to mourners would be inciting violence and subject to arrest.
Of course, trespassing on private property is also an offense. Should a cemetery be owned by a private entity, this could also be enforced.
Any practice that could be demonstrated to be a threat to life or limb would also be considered against the law.
Also, death threats and the like to individuals in either the public or private sector would be illegal, coming under the heading of "hate speech" if not rising to the level of a federal offense (such as with the President of the United States).
While it is considered illegal to make laws against an individual in particular, I notice that in the case of Fred Phelps and his anything-but-Christlike way of dealing with people with whom he disagrees, some state legislatures have come awfully close, prohibiting demonstrations at funerals. I say, good for the states.
But as far as the broader topic of what should be a limit to freedom of religion, I do recall the late President Ronald Reagan saying, "...anything but human sacrifice." I would hasten to add that any religion that blatantly tried to take over control of a local or state or (perish the thought!) national government would be in violation of the law...not that it hasn't been tried from time to time.
EDIT: As much as I admire the ACLU for its principles, I cannot see defending a group of people who will not allow others to mourn their dead in peace.
I would think that a religion in the United States would have to follow civil laws. In the case of Fred Phelps and his ilk, I would interpret demonstrations at funerals of fallen soldiers to be akin to "fighting words". As such, those adherents who held signs and yelled slogans that were offensive to mourners would be inciting violence and subject to arrest.
Of course, trespassing on private property is also an offense. Should a cemetery be owned by a private entity, this could also be enforced.
Any practice that could be demonstrated to be a threat to life or limb would also be considered against the law.
Also, death threats and the like to individuals in either the public or private sector would be illegal, coming under the heading of "hate speech" if not rising to the level of a federal offense (such as with the President of the United States).
While it is considered illegal to make laws against an individual in particular, I notice that in the case of Fred Phelps and his anything-but-Christlike way of dealing with people with whom he disagrees, some state legislatures have come awfully close, prohibiting demonstrations at funerals. I say, good for the states.
But as far as the broader topic of what should be a limit to freedom of religion, I do recall the late President Ronald Reagan saying, "...anything but human sacrifice." I would hasten to add that any religion that blatantly tried to take over control of a local or state or (perish the thought!) national government would be in violation of the law...not that it hasn't been tried from time to time.
EDIT: As much as I admire the ACLU for its principles, I cannot see defending a group of people who will not allow others to mourn their dead in peace.
This so called man, Fred Phelps and his ilk are some of the lowest scumbags on the planet in my opinion.
I don't really think this falls under freedom of religion but more falling under people wanting the right to inflame others. The ACLU is actually on the side of Fred Phelps but not specifically about religion. They are attempting to defend his freedom of speech. They believe the law which is being passed in Kansas would outlaw protests with in 500 feet of protests. The ACLU's argument on behalf of Fred Phelps is that at 500 feet the protests cannot be heard, and restricting his freedom of speech.
Personally I don't think they should be seen either.
I don't really think this falls under freedom of religion but more falling under people wanting the right to inflame others. The ACLU is actually on the side of Fred Phelps but not specifically about religion. They are attempting to defend his freedom of speech. They believe the law which is being passed in Kansas would outlaw protests with in 500 feet of protests. The ACLU's argument on behalf of Fred Phelps is that at 500 feet the protests cannot be heard, and restricting his freedom of speech.
Personally I don't think they should be seen either.
This is a huge and extremely important question.
Let's start with the specific example you mention. I think that there is pretty general agreement around here that Phelps is a creep. (His "church" seems to consist almost entirely of his extended family, so he certainly doesn't have much support even from the most extreme social conservatives.) However, as long as his protests are not violent or violate other reasonable laws (such as entering private property without permission), we must tolerate them. We must allow for the burning of flags and crosses, and for peaceful demonstrations of the most repugnant opinions. (And I would certainly support your right to destroy a Bible as a form of symbolic protest.)
More generally, the only limits on the religious freedom of the individual should be those which are clearly necessary in order to avoid harm to others. I would try to persuade a devout Christian Scientist to seek secular medical treatment for herself when it was necessary, but I would not force her to do so. However, if she refuses necessary secular medical treatment for her children when they are too young to make such a decision for themselves, and serious harm or death results, I would have to say that she is guilty of a crime.
(In certain other cases, when an activity is not directly harmful to others but is illegal, it may be necessary to decide on a case by case basis whether religious beliefs serve as an adequate excuse for violating the law. You can't just refuse to pay your taxes because of your religion, for example. On the other hand, the use of hallucinogens which would otherwise be illegal has been permitted for certain sects.)
Religious expression can and must be restricted very strongly when it is being done by the government itself, or when an individual is clearly acting in her official capacity as a representative of the government. A judge having religious documents in her private office is fine; a religious (or anti-religious) display in the courthouse is not.
Let's start with the specific example you mention. I think that there is pretty general agreement around here that Phelps is a creep. (His "church" seems to consist almost entirely of his extended family, so he certainly doesn't have much support even from the most extreme social conservatives.) However, as long as his protests are not violent or violate other reasonable laws (such as entering private property without permission), we must tolerate them. We must allow for the burning of flags and crosses, and for peaceful demonstrations of the most repugnant opinions. (And I would certainly support your right to destroy a Bible as a form of symbolic protest.)
More generally, the only limits on the religious freedom of the individual should be those which are clearly necessary in order to avoid harm to others. I would try to persuade a devout Christian Scientist to seek secular medical treatment for herself when it was necessary, but I would not force her to do so. However, if she refuses necessary secular medical treatment for her children when they are too young to make such a decision for themselves, and serious harm or death results, I would have to say that she is guilty of a crime.
(In certain other cases, when an activity is not directly harmful to others but is illegal, it may be necessary to decide on a case by case basis whether religious beliefs serve as an adequate excuse for violating the law. You can't just refuse to pay your taxes because of your religion, for example. On the other hand, the use of hallucinogens which would otherwise be illegal has been permitted for certain sects.)
Religious expression can and must be restricted very strongly when it is being done by the government itself, or when an individual is clearly acting in her official capacity as a representative of the government. A judge having religious documents in her private office is fine; a religious (or anti-religious) display in the courthouse is not.
This has nothing to do with freedom of religion but freedom of speech. While I think his practices are disgusting I don't think there is much that can be done by authorities. I would however like to see more people stand up against these protests. By that I mean an organized counter protest that is done peacefully and stands between the hate mongers and the mourners. I believe there is a group of bikers that already does this but there needs to be more.
What are the limits to freedom of religion?
To be serious - hateful though such behaviour is, I think any free society has to (at best) permit it.
I think the only limits on religious freedoms should be where they infringe the higher right of others - by higher rights, I don't mean there is or should be any kind of Constitutional prioritisation. I just mean the sort of rights that most people would intuitively say were more important than freedom of religion.
Most obviously, the right to life of an intended sacrificial victim would always take priority over the right of another to offer them as a human sacrifice in the free exercise of their religious beliefs.
But I must admit this is another area where I just don't get America. My first reaction, which I'd say was fairly typical for a Brit, would be that the best way to minimise the impact of such people is to laugh at them and poke fun at them.
Hell, organise a trip by 3,000 San Fransisco gays to have a miniature round-the-clock gay pride rally outside the man's house. If any of the soldiers whose funerals he's protesting has a family who wants a celebration of their son's/brother's/father's/husband's life and humour, and doesn't mind it being somewhat hijacked for the purposes of satire (a tall ask, but not completely outside the bounds of possibility) invite the gay pride rally to the funeral - wearing leather caps, chaps, bondage gear and big bushy moustaches if at all possible.
Get this idiot into such a foaming-mouthed outrage that he'll give himself a stroke, and then send some more gay protestors to disrupt his funeral and see how his family like it.
To be serious - hateful though such behaviour is, I think any free society has to (at best) permit it.
I think the only limits on religious freedoms should be where they infringe the higher right of others - by higher rights, I don't mean there is or should be any kind of Constitutional prioritisation. I just mean the sort of rights that most people would intuitively say were more important than freedom of religion.
Most obviously, the right to life of an intended sacrificial victim would always take priority over the right of another to offer them as a human sacrifice in the free exercise of their religious beliefs.
But I must admit this is another area where I just don't get America. My first reaction, which I'd say was fairly typical for a Brit, would be that the best way to minimise the impact of such people is to laugh at them and poke fun at them.
Hell, organise a trip by 3,000 San Fransisco gays to have a miniature round-the-clock gay pride rally outside the man's house. If any of the soldiers whose funerals he's protesting has a family who wants a celebration of their son's/brother's/father's/husband's life and humour, and doesn't mind it being somewhat hijacked for the purposes of satire (a tall ask, but not completely outside the bounds of possibility) invite the gay pride rally to the funeral - wearing leather caps, chaps, bondage gear and big bushy moustaches if at all possible.
Get this idiot into such a foaming-mouthed outrage that he'll give himself a stroke, and then send some more gay protestors to disrupt his funeral and see how his family like it.
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ May 23 2006, 03:35 AM)
Fred Phelps, the fundamental Kansas preacher, protested a Marine's funeral on May 22nd, 2006. This action incited a violent reaction.
Question for debate:
What are the limits to freedom of religion?
Personally, I'm tempted to rip pages out of a Bible, crumple them up and throw them on the ground in front of these people. I have no respect for their warped beliefs.
Question for debate:
What are the limits to freedom of religion?
Personally, I'm tempted to rip pages out of a Bible, crumple them up and throw them on the ground in front of these people. I have no respect for their warped beliefs.
You have a link to the story on the violence?
I tried to search for this story, but found no current links. Honestly, it doesn't surprise me a bit that thie group was met with a violent response. It is only a matter of time, and it will happen again.
Yes, that would be a funny tactic. But, when people haven't seen their children, husbands, or wives in months and months and they come home in pieces in a box, people tend to lose their sense of humor. Yes, if this group of yokels was standing outside of a gay bar, or even heckling a wedding, by all means a drag out the band of merry pranksters. In a case like this, a violent response it damn near inevitable. I'm surprised it took this long.
Edited to add: After looking at the link AM posted below, it seems these protestors collided with dueling protestors. What a mess and waste of police resources.
I suppose I should answer the debate question: What are the limits to freedom of religion?
Religious freedom should be limited if its exercise results in a high risk of damage to a second party, or impacts on the direct interests of others. I would argue that this group exceeds its rights on both of those grounds. There is a large risk of violence, which ties up resources AT BEST, and family members are not able to mourn free of harrassment. Why should this group's religious practices usurp the mourners' religious practices?
IN fact, come to think of it, I don't think this qualifies as a religious issue, unless they can prove that harassing funeral services is crucial to their religion. Mourning, by contrast, IS a longstanding religious practice.
QUOTE(Julian @ May 27 2006, 06:00 AM)
But I must admit this is another area where I just don't get America. My first reaction, which I'd say was fairly typical for a Brit, would be that the best way to minimise the impact of such people is to laugh at them and poke fun at them.
Hell, organise a trip by 3,000 San Fransisco gays to have a miniature round-the-clock gay pride rally outside the man's house. If any of the soldiers whose funerals he's protesting has a family who wants a celebration of their son's/brother's/father's/husband's life and humour, and doesn't mind it being somewhat hijacked for the purposes of satire (a tall ask, but not completely outside the bounds of possibility) invite the gay pride rally to the funeral - wearing leather caps, chaps, bondage gear and big bushy moustaches if at all possible.
Get this idiot into such a foaming-mouthed outrage that he'll give himself a stroke, and then send some more gay protestors to disrupt his funeral and see how his family like it.
Hell, organise a trip by 3,000 San Fransisco gays to have a miniature round-the-clock gay pride rally outside the man's house. If any of the soldiers whose funerals he's protesting has a family who wants a celebration of their son's/brother's/father's/husband's life and humour, and doesn't mind it being somewhat hijacked for the purposes of satire (a tall ask, but not completely outside the bounds of possibility) invite the gay pride rally to the funeral - wearing leather caps, chaps, bondage gear and big bushy moustaches if at all possible.
Get this idiot into such a foaming-mouthed outrage that he'll give himself a stroke, and then send some more gay protestors to disrupt his funeral and see how his family like it.
Yes, that would be a funny tactic. But, when people haven't seen their children, husbands, or wives in months and months and they come home in pieces in a box, people tend to lose their sense of humor. Yes, if this group of yokels was standing outside of a gay bar, or even heckling a wedding, by all means a drag out the band of merry pranksters. In a case like this, a violent response it damn near inevitable. I'm surprised it took this long.
Edited to add: After looking at the link AM posted below, it seems these protestors collided with dueling protestors. What a mess and waste of police resources.
I suppose I should answer the debate question: What are the limits to freedom of religion?
Religious freedom should be limited if its exercise results in a high risk of damage to a second party, or impacts on the direct interests of others. I would argue that this group exceeds its rights on both of those grounds. There is a large risk of violence, which ties up resources AT BEST, and family members are not able to mourn free of harrassment. Why should this group's religious practices usurp the mourners' religious practices?
IN fact, come to think of it, I don't think this qualifies as a religious issue, unless they can prove that harassing funeral services is crucial to their religion. Mourning, by contrast, IS a longstanding religious practice.
The reason for asking is, so far, the patriot guard has prevented a violent response- and I am curious to see where the violent response came from in order to really answer this question.
fighting words also have some connotation of who they are being said TO.
fighting words also have some connotation of who they are being said TO.
Here's a link to the news story:
Phelps Violence
It's just a matter of time before Phelps gets swatted down, and people will be hurt. But I guess we have to tolerate him meanwhile, which we have been doing. It's just that people's tolerance has limits. Hey, gimme one of those eggs!
Blues Brothers: "I hate Illinois Nazis. RRRRRRRRRR!"
Our current limits to the freedom of religion include:
- Tax exempt status, where not every claimed church gets the exemption. Individuals tried to be churches in the 1970s, and this doesn't wash any longer.
- Beating wives and children, that's against the law.
- Polygamy is against the law.
- Cruelty to animals is against the law (sacrifice).
- Preaching the violent overthrow of the government is against the law.
So, the religious beliefs that Phelps promotes could be against the law too.
Since I gave my actual news story, not a blog spot, I would like to see a link to the ACLU story. All I'm getting are bloggers, and that's just not good enough.
Phelps Violence
It's just a matter of time before Phelps gets swatted down, and people will be hurt. But I guess we have to tolerate him meanwhile, which we have been doing. It's just that people's tolerance has limits. Hey, gimme one of those eggs!
Blues Brothers: "I hate Illinois Nazis. RRRRRRRRRR!"
Our current limits to the freedom of religion include:
- Tax exempt status, where not every claimed church gets the exemption. Individuals tried to be churches in the 1970s, and this doesn't wash any longer.
- Beating wives and children, that's against the law.
- Polygamy is against the law.
- Cruelty to animals is against the law (sacrifice).
- Preaching the violent overthrow of the government is against the law.
So, the religious beliefs that Phelps promotes could be against the law too.
QUOTE(Sleeper @ May 23 2006, 09:04 AM)
This so called man, Fred Phelps and his ilk are some of the lowest scumbags on the planet in my opinion.
I don't really think this falls under freedom of religion but more falling under people wanting the right to inflame others. The ACLU is actually on the side of Fred Phelps but not specifically about religion. They are attempting to defend his freedom of speech. They believe the law which is being passed in Kansas would outlaw protests with in 500 feet of protests. The ACLU's argument on behalf of Fred Phelps is that at 500 feet the protests cannot be heard, and restricting his freedom of speech.
Personally I don't think they should be seen either.
I don't really think this falls under freedom of religion but more falling under people wanting the right to inflame others. The ACLU is actually on the side of Fred Phelps but not specifically about religion. They are attempting to defend his freedom of speech. They believe the law which is being passed in Kansas would outlaw protests with in 500 feet of protests. The ACLU's argument on behalf of Fred Phelps is that at 500 feet the protests cannot be heard, and restricting his freedom of speech.
Personally I don't think they should be seen either.
Since I gave my actual news story, not a blog spot, I would like to see a link to the ACLU story. All I'm getting are bloggers, and that's just not good enough.
What a bunch of hypocrites.
I believe the same as you guys - the guy's actions are reprehensible. However, when I state I believe burning a flag as a form of protest in the face of veterans does the same thing, suddenly that form of free speech should be protected.
So, while I'm convinced this is less of a freedom of religion issue as opposed to a freedom of speech issue, according to history at AD, this should be allowed. But people's intolerance of religion somehow makes this situation "different". I say bullcrap.
I've always had grief with these types of actions. A peaceful demonstration for the most reprehensible groups of people should be allowed. But I think intimidating a group should be over that limit. And again, that's why burning a flag is not a form of peaceful protest no more than burning a cross is.
I believe the same as you guys - the guy's actions are reprehensible. However, when I state I believe burning a flag as a form of protest in the face of veterans does the same thing, suddenly that form of free speech should be protected.
So, while I'm convinced this is less of a freedom of religion issue as opposed to a freedom of speech issue, according to history at AD, this should be allowed. But people's intolerance of religion somehow makes this situation "different". I say bullcrap.
I've always had grief with these types of actions. A peaceful demonstration for the most reprehensible groups of people should be allowed. But I think intimidating a group should be over that limit. And again, that's why burning a flag is not a form of peaceful protest no more than burning a cross is.
QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ May 27 2006, 08:53 AM)
What a bunch of hypocrites.
I believe the same as you guys - the guy's actions are reprehensible. However, when I state I believe burning a flag as a form of protest in the face of veterans does the same thing, suddenly that form of free speech should be protected.
So, while I'm convinced this is less of a freedom of religion issue as opposed to a freedom of speech issue, according to history at AD, this should be allowed. But people's intolerance of religion somehow makes this situation "different". I say bullcrap.
I've always had grief with these types of actions. A peaceful demonstration for the most reprehensible groups of people should be allowed. But I think intimidating a group should be over that limit. And again, that's why burning a flag is not a form of peaceful protest no more than burning a cross is.
I believe the same as you guys - the guy's actions are reprehensible. However, when I state I believe burning a flag as a form of protest in the face of veterans does the same thing, suddenly that form of free speech should be protected.
So, while I'm convinced this is less of a freedom of religion issue as opposed to a freedom of speech issue, according to history at AD, this should be allowed. But people's intolerance of religion somehow makes this situation "different". I say bullcrap.
I've always had grief with these types of actions. A peaceful demonstration for the most reprehensible groups of people should be allowed. But I think intimidating a group should be over that limit. And again, that's why burning a flag is not a form of peaceful protest no more than burning a cross is.
Oh, I get it! If I am in favor of freedom of speech or expression at other times, I am a hypocrite! There are only two people thus far on this thread who are against this...so the "bunch" you speak of must be AM and me. I don't believe respecting persons at a funeral to the point of permitting them to be free of harassment during the service is a violation of free speech. These people are free to express their opinion from several feet away. I also don't want them to masturbate in the middle of the service, on the lawn. How hypocritical of me! I am against freedom of expression!
I have always been curious as to why polygamy is against the law, though expressely sanctioned by the bible, but Phelp's behavior is not 
Anyway- I have to go with DR on this one- as long as they are not crossing the line as to what is already legal/illegal, then they have a right to protest.
I wanted the actual story, because I wanted to see if the patriot guard as part of it, and what specifically, if anything, beyond thier usual scum-baggedness (hey, a new word?) they had done to provoke the riot.
If we allow the KKK to do what they do in public places- we really have to allow the Phelps to do the same thing. They are equally offensive behaviors- but as long as they are just words and the usual public protest, there should be no law written against them, nor should threat of violence through non-protection by the goverment be an option.
In the end, thier behavior is just words, not blows to the head.
Anyway- I have to go with DR on this one- as long as they are not crossing the line as to what is already legal/illegal, then they have a right to protest.
I wanted the actual story, because I wanted to see if the patriot guard as part of it, and what specifically, if anything, beyond thier usual scum-baggedness (hey, a new word?) they had done to provoke the riot.
If we allow the KKK to do what they do in public places- we really have to allow the Phelps to do the same thing. They are equally offensive behaviors- but as long as they are just words and the usual public protest, there should be no law written against them, nor should threat of violence through non-protection by the goverment be an option.
In the end, thier behavior is just words, not blows to the head.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ May 27 2006, 09:18 AM)
If we allow the KKK to do what they do in public places- we really have to allow the Phelps to do the same thing. They are equally offensive behaviors- but as long as they are just words and the usual public protest, there should be no law written against them, nor should threat of violence through non-protection by the goverment be an option.
For you, CR : Cross burning is considered a means of racial intimidation. This ruling was uphead by the USSC.
I am not advocating a law banning these protests. Simply one that protects the rights of the grievers to do so without harassment, for the duration of the funeral. These protestors can hold signs and spew whatever they wish to from a certain distance.
AM, here is a link to the ACLU. It states that they have no intention of challenging the law.
Everything in a society based on laws and order has some limit, nothing is limitless or else it is just anarchy. My big one with religious belief is when it crosses over into violations of Human Rights, and even more specifically when that includes children.
I know I have a pretty liberal view of what these rights entail as I would include education and feel some forms of "home schooling" would qualify. I am mostly concerned with and repulsed by our country's state sanctioned child abuse that for some reason feels the parental religious practice is superior to that of the child's right to live. I feel these examples of needed limits are far more important and worthy of our attentions than that moron Phelps.
I know I have a pretty liberal view of what these rights entail as I would include education and feel some forms of "home schooling" would qualify. I am mostly concerned with and repulsed by our country's state sanctioned child abuse that for some reason feels the parental religious practice is superior to that of the child's right to live. I feel these examples of needed limits are far more important and worthy of our attentions than that moron Phelps.
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ May 27 2006, 07:14 AM)
Our current limits to the freedom of religion include:
- Cruelty to animals is against the law (sacrifice).
- Cruelty to animals is against the law (sacrifice).
I'm splitting hairs here, but I want to point out that deciding when the government can interfere with the rights of the faithful in religious-liberty cases depends on whether the faithful violate a law or regulation that applies to everyone else. In the case of Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, SCOTUS ruled against Hialeah because the ordinance specifically singled out Santeria. The High Court made clear, however, that a general ordinance banning animal cruelty would stand based on precedent handed down in an earlier ruling.
I think The Dignity for Military Funerals Act of 2006 is going to be struck down. The restrictions are tailored.
QUOTE(TDfMFA)
`(1) the term `armed forces' has the meaning given the term in section 101 of title 10;
`(2) the term `funeral of a member or former member of the armed forces' means any ceremony, procession, or memorial service held in connection with the burial or cremation of a member or former member of the armed forces;
`(3) the term `picketing' means protest activities engaged in by any person within 300 feet of a cemetery, mortuary, or church during the period beginning 1 hour prior to the funeral of a member of the armed forces and ending 1 hour after the conclusion of such a funeral ; and
`(4) the term `protest activities' includes, with respect to any funeral --
`(A) oration, speech, or similar conduct before an assembled group of people that is not part of the funeral or ceremony,
`(B) the display of placards, banners, posters, flags, or similar devices that are not part of the funeral or ceremony, and
`© the distribution of any handbill, pamphlet, leaflet, or other written material that is not part of the funeral or ceremony.'.
`(2) the term `funeral of a member or former member of the armed forces' means any ceremony, procession, or memorial service held in connection with the burial or cremation of a member or former member of the armed forces;
`(3) the term `picketing' means protest activities engaged in by any person within 300 feet of a cemetery, mortuary, or church during the period beginning 1 hour prior to the funeral of a member of the armed forces and ending 1 hour after the conclusion of such a funeral ; and
`(4) the term `protest activities' includes, with respect to any funeral --
`(A) oration, speech, or similar conduct before an assembled group of people that is not part of the funeral or ceremony,
`(B) the display of placards, banners, posters, flags, or similar devices that are not part of the funeral or ceremony, and
`© the distribution of any handbill, pamphlet, leaflet, or other written material that is not part of the funeral or ceremony.'.
It doesn't differentiate between federal and public land, it can be argued it creates another "special class" citizen by failing to provide the same protections to non-military personnel, and could possibly be used as insulating churches against protests in general. Just my guess.
DR,
Huh?
How can you equate burning a flag to someone hollering that your DEAD son, brother, mother, daughter, father, sister, husband, wife, family member, close friend is hated by God? One is a symbol while the other is your loved one. Come off it. You know better than this.
But then, maybe you don't. Sorry for you.
Anyway, this is off topic. Flag burning is not part of any religion I know of.
We are free to worship however we choose. If one's religious belief flies into the face of others, there are limits. Keeping Phelps and his minions or other copycats away from funerals makes sense to me. I didn't say boo about them before. It's the funeral factor, plus the inevitable violence that followed. One leads to the other.
It's karma. I did not invent it.
Besides, I don't care if they protest. Just keep them away from the mourning people. Actually, maybe we should REQUIRE that as they stand on flags, the flags must be burning.
PS: Hey, where's the link to the ACLU story? Oh wait, Mrs. P debunked that idea, thank you very much.
Huh?
How can you equate burning a flag to someone hollering that your DEAD son, brother, mother, daughter, father, sister, husband, wife, family member, close friend is hated by God? One is a symbol while the other is your loved one. Come off it. You know better than this.
But then, maybe you don't. Sorry for you.
Anyway, this is off topic. Flag burning is not part of any religion I know of.
We are free to worship however we choose. If one's religious belief flies into the face of others, there are limits. Keeping Phelps and his minions or other copycats away from funerals makes sense to me. I didn't say boo about them before. It's the funeral factor, plus the inevitable violence that followed. One leads to the other.
It's karma. I did not invent it.
Besides, I don't care if they protest. Just keep them away from the mourning people. Actually, maybe we should REQUIRE that as they stand on flags, the flags must be burning.
PS: Hey, where's the link to the ACLU story? Oh wait, Mrs. P debunked that idea, thank you very much.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ May 27 2006, 05:09 AM)
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ May 27 2006, 09:18 AM)
If we allow the KKK to do what they do in public places- we really have to allow the Phelps to do the same thing. They are equally offensive behaviors- but as long as they are just words and the usual public protest, there should be no law written against them, nor should threat of violence through non-protection by the goverment be an option.
For you, CR : Cross burning is considered a means of racial intimidation. This ruling was uphead by the USSC.
I am not advocating a law banning these protests. Simply one that protects the rights of the grievers to do so without harassment, for the duration of the funeral. These protestors can hold signs and spew whatever they wish to from a certain distance.
AM, here is a link to the ACLU. It states that they have no intention of challenging the law.
To clarify Mrs P- I was not talking about the right to burn a cross- but rather, the right to, basically, behave exactly like the Phelps- protest with swastikas and what not. I am not sure on this- and please correct me if I am wrong, but I think the Phelps pretty much follow the same guidelines as the nazi's for thier current protests- or the same as the white supremicists protections of freedom of speech and assembly? I am reasonably sure that any time there has been a denial of a permit for "hate groups" to protest or assemble or what not, that these laws have been struck down if they didn't adequately adress the groups right to assemble and make speech?
Though, edited to add- I entirely see your point on the grieving families rights to assemble and such without disruption in thier private ceremony- and it is a tough balancing act, to be sure.
As a biker myself, I am following the patriot guards very closely, to see if I need to join up here in Alaska- so far, we are too far away from this scum-baggish behavior- but if they come up, I will be exercising my constitutional right to non-violent counter-protest and use my rather larg-ish back and shoulders to help, with my biker brothers and sisters, shield the family from these protestors.
Probably the most correct way to deal with this in the long run IMHO
QUOTE
But I must admit this is another area where I just don't get America. My first reaction, which I'd say was fairly typical for a Brit, would be that the best way to minimise the impact of such people is to laugh at them and poke fun at them.
Hell, organise a trip by 3,000 San Fransisco gays to have a miniature round-the-clock gay pride rally outside the man's house. If any of the soldiers whose funerals he's protesting has a family who wants a celebration of their son's/brother's/father's/husband's life and humour, and doesn't mind it being somewhat hijacked for the purposes of satire (a tall ask, but not completely outside the bounds of possibility) invite the gay pride rally to the funeral - wearing leather caps, chaps, bondage gear and big bushy moustaches if at all possible.
Hell, organise a trip by 3,000 San Fransisco gays to have a miniature round-the-clock gay pride rally outside the man's house. If any of the soldiers whose funerals he's protesting has a family who wants a celebration of their son's/brother's/father's/husband's life and humour, and doesn't mind it being somewhat hijacked for the purposes of satire (a tall ask, but not completely outside the bounds of possibility) invite the gay pride rally to the funeral - wearing leather caps, chaps, bondage gear and big bushy moustaches if at all possible.
Personally I would like to see the Christians deal with this somehow--he is after all one of theirs--whether they like it or not.
How about a large choir follow these morons around and sing something nice for the family to drown out these sub human pieces of garbage.
Are the graveyards private property by chance. You cannot protest on my property BubbaJoe.
This is not Religious Freedom. Just like Ahmed cant knife his daughter to death because she went on a date you cannot use your religion to harm others because they don't do as you demand. I wouldn't equate it the same as a murder but it is still violent in nature.
QUOTE
For you, CR : Cross burning is considered a means of racial intimidation. This ruling was uphead by the USSC.
I see this as the same kind of intimidation and would expect it to be upheld as the same.
How about good old shunning. If these fools are noticed in town perhaps private business might be warned area wide and refuse to serve them at all.
No gas for their cars, no food, no hotels. Although they seem the type of freaks who will probably get stimulated by the whole "See we're Martyrs for Jebus" thing.
If they stay with locals, ID the locals and have area media harass THEM.
I would imagine if notice can be gotten out early enough you could get enough locals around to swell the the patriot guards ranks and make it near impossible for them to get so close.
Parking violations, jaywalking, broken tail lights, C'mon Law Enforcement do your best.
Can any laws be passed? I think a careful going over of local ordinances could find something--even if they are legally protesting. Even protests have restrictions.
Those fines can add up fast after a few towns. Sure its just sniping but its better than nothing.
Once again- these guys are lawyers, every stinkin' one of them. Targeted prosecution plays just as well into thier hands due to the "deep pockets" issue. Holding signs and chanting slogans is not burning a cross.
I think as long as thier behavior remains to chant slogans and hold signs, I don't think there will be a way for the goverment to stop it or codify it too far.
I think as long as thier behavior remains to chant slogans and hold signs, I don't think there will be a way for the goverment to stop it or codify it too far.
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ May 28 2006, 02:48 AM)
How can you equate burning a flag to someone hollering that your DEAD son, brother, mother, daughter, father, sister, husband, wife, family member, close friend is hated by God?
As I stated earlier, I don't see how this is a freedom of religion issue as opposed to a freedom of speech issue. If Phelps would have yelled "Your mom hates you", I would have the same problem with it. That "speech" is meant to intimidate and I think that is wrong, should not be tolerated, and should be illegal.
To be consistent, I think any act of "protest" meant to intimidate others should be treated the same with the same penalty. That includes cross-burning, flag-burning, or any act that that involves physical actions that I refuse to acknowledge as "peaceful assembly".
Most people here an AD support the ban on burning crosses but not a ban on banning flags because a flag is just "a piece of cloth". Nevermind that a cross is just "a couple pieces of wood". But if somebody burns that flag in front of me - a veteran - that hates this administration but loves his country, that will incite me to retaliate somehow. But because I'm just a middle-class white male, I'm expected to tolerate it.
Given this, Phelps actions were "just words". Get over it.
Okay- cross burning seems to be very relevent to this debate- because of it's connotation as "hate speech" vs "free speech" etc- and the "intimidation factor"-
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20...hemerinsky.html
The First Principle: Some Cross-Burning Is Free Speech
First, cross-burning is not automatically exempt from First Amendment protection.
Previously, in the case of RAV v. City of St. Paul, the Court struck had down a city ordinance that prohibited burning a cross or painting a swastika in a manner likely to anger, alarm, or cause resentment. It implicitly made clear that the government cannot outlaw such symbols of hate, however offensive they may be. Then this month, in Virginia v. Black, the Court expressly reiterated that principle.
This seems exactly right. Many symbols may be terribly disturbing. For example, burning a flag is perceived by many as deeply offensive, just as burning a cross conveys the worst of America's legacy of racism. But under the First Amendment, it is not for the government to prevent particular views from being expressed.
Cross burning itself is not automatically illegal, nor does it automatically assumed to be "intimidating"- the "Virginia vs Black" case- the cross was burned on a farm away from any volume of poeple to see it- so, it was determined, since there seemed to be no goal to "communicate a message of protest" to a large audience, rather, to intimidate one African American family- this can be put on the level of making terroristic threats.
Cross burning IS legal as long as:
1) it is done safely
2) is not used to threaten one person or family, but rather , to communicate protest to a large audience
So, the cross burning analogy does not fit into the debate of the Phelps situation- since they didn't say "We are going to kill your relatives", which would be intimidation or a relevent provoking comment- instead "God KILLED your relatives".
See the point I am trying to make here?
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20...hemerinsky.html
The First Principle: Some Cross-Burning Is Free Speech
First, cross-burning is not automatically exempt from First Amendment protection.
Previously, in the case of RAV v. City of St. Paul, the Court struck had down a city ordinance that prohibited burning a cross or painting a swastika in a manner likely to anger, alarm, or cause resentment. It implicitly made clear that the government cannot outlaw such symbols of hate, however offensive they may be. Then this month, in Virginia v. Black, the Court expressly reiterated that principle.
This seems exactly right. Many symbols may be terribly disturbing. For example, burning a flag is perceived by many as deeply offensive, just as burning a cross conveys the worst of America's legacy of racism. But under the First Amendment, it is not for the government to prevent particular views from being expressed.
Cross burning itself is not automatically illegal, nor does it automatically assumed to be "intimidating"- the "Virginia vs Black" case- the cross was burned on a farm away from any volume of poeple to see it- so, it was determined, since there seemed to be no goal to "communicate a message of protest" to a large audience, rather, to intimidate one African American family- this can be put on the level of making terroristic threats.
Cross burning IS legal as long as:
1) it is done safely
2) is not used to threaten one person or family, but rather , to communicate protest to a large audience
So, the cross burning analogy does not fit into the debate of the Phelps situation- since they didn't say "We are going to kill your relatives", which would be intimidation or a relevent provoking comment- instead "God KILLED your relatives".
See the point I am trying to make here?
QUOTE
Given this, Phelps actions were "just words". Get over it.
Right, except I can't get over it for the people mourning their loved ones. And come off it, burning a flag is nothing to losing a son or daughter, father or mother. Or have you not experienced such a thing?
Listen: This is a religious issue, not speech. Phelps' message is that his god hates a lot. That's it. There's nothing political about the message. It has everything to do with theology and thereby the freedom of religious expression, also known as worship.
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ May 23 2006, 07:35 AM)
What are the limits to freedom of religion?
Well, since there is no question that there should be religious freedom, we have to address the idea that there is a limit to freedom in America despite the law. Some Christians hold to the principle that there is no higher law than that of their God. If you account for that, in some people's minds that is enough of an answer.
In practical American law, the words Phelps delivered were enough to inspire hostile action. People are arrested for intention to insight a riot not all the time but well enough for law enforcement officials to know that that stipulation exists. The limits of religious freedom in our system of law should be centered around the fact that one cannot use their religion to act as a shield against otherwise illegal action. If a Christian preacher speaking against soldiers was directly or indirectly the cause of violence, they should be arrested.
Now that the entire can of worms of freedom of speech meets freedom of religions has been opened up and my two cents have been dropped in the bucket, I'd just like to say that I agree with AuthorMusician on this one.
What are the limits to freedom of religion?
The same as the limits to any of our other freedoms. So long as the exercise of that freedom does not interfere with either statutory law or the rights of others, there should be no limits. For example, slavery, incest, and polygamy are all condoned by the Judeo-Christian Bible, yet are against the law in the United States. religion is therefore "limited" by existing law.
Being terrified of homosexuality, on the other hand, is not against the law in the United States - which brings us to Phelps and his freedom of speech. Unlike many, I feel that the Westboro Baptist Church has every right to mount these demonstrations - so long as they do not violate the law or infringe on the rights of others.
DaytonRocker can include me in a "bunch" that supports both flag-burning and "God Hates Fags" protests. They're both protected by the Bill of Rights, however inappropriate we may feel they are.
The same as the limits to any of our other freedoms. So long as the exercise of that freedom does not interfere with either statutory law or the rights of others, there should be no limits. For example, slavery, incest, and polygamy are all condoned by the Judeo-Christian Bible, yet are against the law in the United States. religion is therefore "limited" by existing law.
Being terrified of homosexuality, on the other hand, is not against the law in the United States - which brings us to Phelps and his freedom of speech. Unlike many, I feel that the Westboro Baptist Church has every right to mount these demonstrations - so long as they do not violate the law or infringe on the rights of others.
DaytonRocker can include me in a "bunch" that supports both flag-burning and "God Hates Fags" protests. They're both protected by the Bill of Rights, however inappropriate we may feel they are.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.