tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15122053.post116017317836617066..comments2023-08-05T06:28:33.590-07:00Comments on Mona Lisa's Eyebrows: God hates Westboro Baptist ChurchAlice Hhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06213524503429381177noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15122053.post-1161187767369373532006-10-18T09:09:00.000-07:002006-10-18T09:09:00.000-07:00Another significant point has occurred to me: in a...Another significant point has occurred to me: in a case about ten years ago, misdemeanor charges were brought against people who barged into a mosque blaring the national anthem, as unlawful conduct on public property and disorderly conduct with unreasonable noise in a public place. Couldn't Phelp's groups' protest at funerals be considered to be a violation of the same laws? While Phelps and his followers claim they have freedom of speech rights to protest loudly and disruptively at funerals, the above case involving the national anthem and the mosque appears to strongly suggest that Phelps is as wrong on constitutional law as he is on his right to force everyone to interpret scripture the way he does.<BR/><BR/>Another thought occurs to me, which is that Christ taught that we should "turn the other cheek" if someone attacks us, I don't want my comments to be seen as an attack on Phelps or his group. They are entitled to believe what they believe. I don't think, however, that they are entitled to infringe other people's rights by disrupting funerals and other solemn or serious occasions and circumstances with their protests that, while communicating their beliefs, do so in a manner that is just as inappropriate as blasting the US national anthem is in a mosque during a service. I think this example makes the distinction between freedom of speech and creating a nuisance pretty clear cut. Nobody's free speech is being meaningfully infringed if I just want to be free of people screaming insults at me while a loved one is put to his or her final rest.StatelyPlumphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16520895875086378870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15122053.post-1161181994625993622006-10-18T07:33:00.000-07:002006-10-18T07:33:00.000-07:00I think Phelps and his group are entitled their op...I think Phelps and his group are entitled their opinion and beliefs, but I think they are overreaching and trying to impose their beliefs on others and that while they want the rest of society to respect their religious rights, they are unwilling to extend the same courtesy to people who do not subscribe to their particular beliefs. Specifically, if Fred Phelps has the constitutional right to believe what he does about homosexuality and even communicate that belief, I think that homosexuals also have the right to live in peace and be able to bury their dead without being harassed and victimized by Phelps and his group. I also find it interesting that Phelps and his group consider themselves to be among the "elect" few that will enter heaven among death, due to their anti-gay activities. I know religion is a touchy subject, and reasonable minds can disagree, but isn't it a sin to state or believe that you are in a state of grace, and isn't it also calvinist doctrine that good works cannot secure you a place among the elect? Food for thought.<BR/><BR/>As for Phelps and his group in the broader sense, by picketing at funerals and the Sago mine disaster they got a lot of attention, but I think most people despise them because of their lack of respect for for the dead. These people think they don't have to respect anyone who doesn't share their beliefs. They're just wrong, and this "movement" is guaranteed dead on arrival as a result.StatelyPlumphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16520895875086378870noreply@blogger.com