Fallen Marine's father says anti-gay pickets will draw gunfire

Originally posted by liejunkie01
I am sorry but I only read the first page. I just wanted to state that I believe this is the old divide and conquer tactic. It is obviously working just from the comments from the first page. I do not need to read more because it is more or less the same.

Everybody is worried about other peoples business, and this is causing serious issues that will spill over eventually.

I do not like what you are doing, so I am going to protest your beliefs, actions, morals, etc......


Get a life people.(the protesters, not necessarily anyone reading this comment)

How do you know it's more or less the same if you haven't read it ?

reply to post by muzzleflash


the press and everybody ignoring the westboro crowd would probably being worse to them and do more damage to them than each of them taking a bullet in the gut.

reply to post by SMR

You say you don't condone violence, yet you condone the military? No war was ever fought to protect anyone's freedom. It's all about money, power, and control.
I became a born again Christian because I was a pacifist in the first place, and Jesus said "Love thy enemy and do good for him who seeks to harm you." I take that literally.
Why would I want to fight to defend a country whose symbols are Luciferian, anyway? Or for a flag that comes from the East India Spice Co which was a front for the opium trade?
Do you know Amerikkkan history?
So, even though I would never oppress someone for being gay, with other consenting adults, I very am very much abhorred by our evil military. The Pentagon is a Pentagram. Do you think that means nothing?
I don't see how anyone who has actually had an experience with the Holy Spirit, through Jesus, could possibly condone our baby killing military!!! Remember Faluja, Mai Lai, and Wounded Knee, you evil sob's!!!!

reply to post by JonoEnglish


Am I wrong?

I read alot of interesting posts.(this not being one of them). But this is a topic where you are for or against it. There is no in between.

Well...whatever message these people are trying to get across to us, it has failed to reach me.

I do not understand what it is that they are trying to fight for.

Is it about free speech? Is it about a God? Is it about soldiers? Is it an aversion to dying and funerals? All of the above? Choose your own adventure kind of thing? And what is the desired outcome of solution? What is the end result which these people are fighting and picketing for? Is there one? How will we/they know that it has been accomplished...whatever "it" is?

If they are trying to say that people are dying because other people are gay, then why not picket everyone who is currently dying or who has died? Why his funeral and the funerals of other soldiers? Why not gay funerals only? Why not everyone's funeral? Why not picket in the pediatric wards of hospitals which hold small dying and suffering children? I mean surely they are also to be held responsible for whatever it is that grieving Mr. Snyder is apparently guilty of as well.

Have they protected and/or won my right to wear boxers and sing "you are going to hell on a crazy train" at Mr. Fred Phelps funeral someday?

I just don't understand.

The only thing that I am getting out of all of this is:
1) a person has died and a father and family were not allowed to mourn their person privately
2) this is being headed up by a church, in the name of a God

I do not understand how having women singing "your going straight to hell on a crazy train" and a man wearing nothing but boxers holders a sign that says "doesn't he wish he was hot like me" while someone is burying their son, helps anyone at all. Was my right to do these things, while someone's child was being lowered into the ground, being threatened?

I only see a loss of love and empathy for fellow human beings, being presented and carried out in the name of a God.

When a loved one dies it is a horrible thing to have to deal with. The pain is sometimes unbearable and it is all you can do to get yourself out of bed and carry yourself through the tasks which are necessary. I do not understand why someone from a church organization (or anyone for that matter) would feel the need to increase and add to the pain and the terribleness of these peoples painful day.

This is they kind of thing which makes me feel hopeless.

Originally posted by liejunkie01
reply to post by JonoEnglish

 

Am I wrong?

I read alot of interesting posts.(this not being one of them). But this is a topic where you are for or against it. There is no in between.

You are interested enough to voice an opinion,

I admit to doing the same sometimes with long threads. I didn't say you were wrong

reply to post by JonoEnglish


What you do in your private time dosen't hinder your ability to further decency in humanity. I'm sure your a good man.
But back to the topic, I'm not defending the actions of these cowardely individuals. I'm just stating that there is another way to stop them that dosen't require government intervention. Anon has already taken the first step. People will fight injustice as long as it exists. Although you do make valid argument, which at this time I have nothing to reply to with, other then it' protected under the constitution. Until they break a law, there is no need for the government to intervene. It's time people take their beliefs into their own hands and launch counter-demonstrations or do whatever possible to dismemble this church.

Your are defnetely right though. What kind of human beign attends a soldiers funeral to protest against homosexuals. Ultimately their ignorance will lead to their demise.

I just don't underatand why so many people can see their actions at a funeral as acceptable.

If you are not on private property, you can have no expectation of privacy, it's in the constitution. Our opinions mean nothing, as they do not override others liberty. If you want to encroach on someones rights, don't be surprised when they guard those rights with arms(guns,knives,ect), as per the constitution. My opinion has no more or less "weight" than yours or anyone. This(the USA) is not a "majority rules" country...we are NOT a democracy.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
You may have good points, but that is for another discussion is it not?

My points about child pornography legislation in the US are perfectly relevant to this discussion.

Selective invocation of the First Amendment in the modern-day is the order of the day from some on this thread.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
You are trying to turn the WBC debate into a debate on the legitimacy of child pornography.

It's not my intention to twist this debate into something that it isn't.

I only bring up child pornography because the legislation that surrounds it in the US completely goes against the First Amendment of your Constitution. Yet, there is never a word of dissent against the legislation, because the rulings are based on moral indignation rather than the freedom that is supposedly outlined in the US Constitution.


There have been a number of threads on ATS about this ruling regarding the WBC protests, and many people have been quick to offer supporting arguments for this church's right to assemble or protest.

Most of these arguments have been centred around the wording and legal interpretation of the First Amendment.

Similar arguments could be used to ''justify'' possession of child pornography.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
I fear this is a derailment and deflection tactic you are employing. I would ask that you start a thread to discuss that issue specifically.

Derailment and deflection ?

I could just as easily accuse your attempt to ''bury'' my posts on this thread as an example of a ''cover-up''.

Of course, I'm not that childish, and nor do I consider your intentions to be anything other than genuine.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
The reason it is not applicable is because in the instance of one, someone was harmed. In the WBC instance, no one was physically harmed throughout the entire debacle.

How can you prove that someone was harmed in an image or video ?

Whereabouts in the legislation does it differentiate between images of minors that were taken under duress or coercion, and images of consenting minors in ''holiday snaps'' and ''family photos'' ?

I don't think that the law makes a distinction between the two, so why do you ?

Originally posted by muzzleflash
The two subjects are so vastly different in their peculiarities that I do not see them as remotely related.

The one thing that links these two issues is the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

There is nothing in the USC, nor ''Natural law'', that makes owning an image a crime.

Yet, moral indignation makes owning child pornography an accepted crime amongst the same vociferous proponents of the First Amendment...

Originally posted by hollyavila
reply to post by SMR

 

You say you don't condone violence, yet you condone the military?

Where did I say I condone the Military ?

Originally posted by idunno12
Well...whatever message these people are trying to get across to us, it has failed to reach me.

I do not understand what it is that they are trying to fight for.

Is it about free speech? Is it about a God? Is it about soldiers? Is it an aversion to dying and funerals? All of the above? Choose your own adventure kind of thing?

I had to give you a star for that

reply to post by JonoEnglish


I will admit that I am interested in this. It involves one of the few(maybe the last) freedoms that I feel is sacred to me. Without freedom of speech, this will not be america. Protesting at funerals is a tricky situation. I believe that if these people believe that what they are doing is right, then there should be nothing to stop the families from doing what they think is right.

Just my two cents because I am an american that is getting tired of new laws and regulations, but protesting at funerals come on. If it were a known fact that it could be dangerous to protest at such times, I think the protests would cease.

People try to hide behind the BS laws enacted by a bunch of white collar people, sitting in a cubicle, that do not have a clue. They should start having these funerals in the hood, or a trailer park down south. We would see who would be protesting then.

Yeah, yeah ...I totally get you guys on the law side of things. I really do.

Like I say, there is political freedom of speech and freedom of speech that can be harmful to people.

Two different things. Is slander freedom of speech, is that allowed within the law?

The propaganda title says they are anti-gay protestors.

These freaks are not at these funerals for anything to do with gays! What liars, the media are. These are anti-war protestors who disrespect and hate the military.

I hope no one sacrifices their freedom to kill any of these kooks. They are making asses out of themselves. They should be counter protested at their homes, coven meeting place and places of business. Every where they go, they should know their fans will be following them, "protesting."

Originally posted by sara123123

. They are making asses out of themselves. They should be counter protested at their homes, coven meeting place and places of business. "

I don't understand why people haven't.

They are ony a small group of people yet their voice is heard Worldwide and does reflect on America to some people to some degree.

How can you prove, in a court of law, that words have harmed you? Is that not just opinion. Unless you can prove the loss of something such as health, or mental stability no crime has taken place. Do you take an ex lover to court because they hurt your feelings? No. Having your feelings hurt by others is not a crime. It just shows emotional weakness. Words have no power unless you give them that power.

reply to post by JonoEnglish


Vets meet them at funerals and drown them out. People in their community need to take up the cause, too.

Freedom of speech must come first. If you start putting conditions on the content, it then becomes an issue of who decides what is and is not allowed.

That being said, those people also have a right to have a peaceful ceremony for their loved one.

I believe in freedom of speech but you can't walk into a mosque and start preaching the Bible, anymore than a Christian church would want a muslim coming into their church and start preaching the koran.

There is absolutely no reason to stiffle anyone's freedom of speech but they should have to do it far away from the funeral.

Originally posted by sara123123
reply to post by JonoEnglish

 

Vets meet them at funerals and drown them out. People in their community need to take up the cause, too.

Matey, If I had the money, i'd fly over and join in with the anti- protest against that church...though I'd probably get accused of being a terrorist. us English are always the bad guys according to the films you put out anyay (just kiddin.... not really... we are always potrayed as slightly mad or the evil one in the film, that gets found out to be bad at the very end)


edit...Ok i was a bit confused why the vets turned out...you mean war veterans, rather than the vets over here who take care of sick animals.

Originally posted by LordBaskettIV
How can you prove, in a court of law, that words have harmed you?

Why then is verbal abuse considered a "Hate Crime" ?

reply to post by Common Scarecrow


You are comparing private property with public property. If someone truely wants a private funeral, then in must take place on privately owned property. And as it was mentioned already, they didn't even know WBC was there until they saw it on the news! How have any rights been trampled. How was thier mourning affected at said funural?