I realize that this is not “new”, however it sets up another post I want to move from my old blog which is about a more current news story, so I felt it appropriate to move this post first. For those interested, there were some good comments on the original post, you might want to check out.
—–
I’d like to start by saying I find Fred Phelps and his church to be among the lowest, most vile, horrendous, despicable, heinous, scumbags around.
I find who they are and what they stand for to be unconscionable.
I find their tactics to be repulsive, their “message” to be unfathomably offensive, and their beliefs to go beyond merely disturbing. If there is such a thing as “evil”, he and his church are among the most evil people I’ve ever heard about.
But with that said, I also firmly believe they have a right to free speech, and I would never be willing to do anything or support anything that would infringe on that right.
However, I am getting ahead of myself for a moment. First a bit of background:
If you’re not aware of who Fred Phelps is, he is the head of a racist, sexist, homophobic, bigoted, group called the Westboro Baptist Church. They are the “god hates fags” group that protests the funerals of soldiers returning from war including the funerals of those who died fighting overseas.
One of these soldiers, Matthew Snyder, fought and died in Iraq. But, at his funeral Westboro protested and harassed his family. Al, Matt’s father, sued them and won. Then, Westboro counter-sued and the verdict was overturned, with the judge citing freedom of speech, and ordering Matt’s family to pay the legal fees for Westboro, which came to a little over $16,000.
—–
A number of my friends on facebook have been in support of the family, and I respect that immensely. Even as somebody who has protested the Iraq war, I have nothing but sympathy for the families of those who have fought, and especially those who have died, over there. However, I believe the family is wrong in this very specific case, and I believe those supporting the family’s goal of silencing the Phelps clan is misguided and dangerous.
One of our most important rights in the US (if not THE single most important right) is our Freedom of Speech. The government has very wisely put as few restrictions as possible on our right to express ourselves. As citizens we should never support the government removing or limiting the freedoms of ourselves or other citizens.
Currently, the family is trying to get support for a bill that would: “ban protesters from funerals“. I’m sorry, but as much as I despise Fred Phelps and his group, freedom of speech does not apply only when it agrees with you or me. One of the most patriotic things we can do as citizens is to stand up for the rights of those we disagree with to speak their minds…
I despise Fred Phelps as much as anybody, BUT I also realize that he has (and should have) the exact same rights that I would demand for myself… And that is why I can never support the idea of censoring him.
I agree it’s vile what Fred Phelps is doing. I agree if they did it at the funeral of somebody I care about, I’d be absolutely livid. But my emotions should not be the basis of our laws. Protections of citizens and their rights should be the basis. Even the citizens who I (or you) find repugnant.
If we create laws today to limit his right to free speech, what is to stop somebody tomorrow from creating laws to limit your or my right to express ourselves? I would never want to unwittingly create a situation where we are no longer free to criticize the government or religion or pseudoscience or frauds or whatever we choose…
Freedom of Speech is to important to risk losing or even limiting.
—–
There are many better options on how to deal with him and the other members of his cult. Phelps has shown time and time again that he is after publicity, and lawsuits. We can stop giving him publicity by just ignoring him. Many groups, including the Hell’s Angels, have done a good job of drowning out his rhetoric at many of his protests. Other groups are using Phelps’ appearances as an opportunity to raise money for worthy causes. Other groups are organizing ways to specifically ignore the Phelps clan.
—–
AS a small update unrelated to the points I am making here, but related to this case, I would also like to give props to Bill O’Reilly. O’Reilly has agreed to pay the $16,500 court costs for the family.
“I will pay Mr. Snyder’s obligation,” said O’Reilly. “I am not going to let this injustice stand.”
While I typically disagree with Bill on most issues, I would like to commend him in this case for helping this family out, and doing “the right thing”.
Matthieu Guibert
Sarah Hippolitus
Rodibidably
Luis Reinoso
Brian Gregory
Thinking Critically 
Pingback: Why I support Fred Phelps | Rodibidably
While there were a few comments when I originally posted this on my old blog, which I recommend checking out because some of the commenters make some very good points, there was a comment today that struck me as, well to be polite I’ll use the word interesting. This particular comment seems to be a letter to Phelps, so I’m a tad confused why it was posted on my blog as a comment, but c’est la vie…
In fact, I feel that at least parts of it are deserving of a point by point response, and perhaps if lucky this user will come back to continue a conversation…
His philosophy I disagree with. It’s his RIGHT to hold that philosophy I don’t oppose. But I’ll let you continue before I get too much in to that.
Similar to what I did, so that’s reasonable enough…
As like most christians, Phelps and his clan have their own beliefs and look for passages in the bible to back up those ideas. They do not truly look at the bible as a complete set of rules to live by.
Well since women were treated as property, i think the case can be made that any rules that apply to men also apply to their possessions. Not a big deal, but certainly something that would be a point for debate…
Many christians would respond to this saying that the bible (old testament included) is no longer for the jews, since they rejected jesus, and that it now refers to them as the ones who are truly living according to god’s law…
For the population of jews to be ½ of 1% would put the figure at a bit over 30 million. The actually population of jews worldwide is closer to 13 million. That would make it a bit less than ½ of ½ of 1%… Minor point, but thought I’d correct your stats for you…
It’s often said that those who speak out the loudest against homosexuality are themselves often closeted homosexuals. So perhaps what he does need is the freedom to act on his own impulses and tendencies. Although I doubt you’d ever get him to admit such a thing…
This is about where I stopped reading when I first saw this comment. Right here I knew that I was going to want to respond point by point, and felt that my response would be more “from the heart”, if I were to respond to my first reading of the rest of your comments.
So you “whole-heartedly support [his] philosophy and [his] actions”? Really?
You support the idea of protesting the funerals of soldiers and causing distress to their family members?
You support the screaming of obscenities at people who did nothing wrong, and are in a time of grieving?
You support teaching children to hate those who are different than themselves?
You support ignorant, bigotry, and fear mongering?
You support willful intellectual dishonesty?
You support hatred under the guise of religious belief?
I somewhat agree that what Phelps does is “designed more to ‘wound’ than to ‘teach.’”, although I would say his primary motivation seems to be to gain publicity for himself, thus feeding his ego and giving himself more “power” over his followers.
Assuming your holy book is correct, god hates more than just homosexuals. He hates women, minorities, those in power, those without power, those who think for them selves, children, his “chosen” people, anybody who is near by his “chosen” people, etc…
In fact reading the bible, it’s hard to find any instance of any person he does not loath…
OR, and I’m just spit-balling here, 9/11 was an attack by muslim extremists due in part to our foreign policy, and in part due to their own twisted ideology. And the dead soldiers are due to horrendous decisions made by the previous administration and your fairy-tales have absolutely nothing to do with it…
I mean both options seems equally plausible…
Many people who follow the abrahamic religions deny this. Possibly because it’s complete and utter crap. But what do I know, I’d a godless heathen…
What does “truck” mean in this context? I’m totally confused…
I agree that the members of congress refer to one religion at the expense of all others was a violation of the Separation of Church and State and should not have happened, but I don’t quite get what your meaning is here.
Well other than this assuming that god exists (despite no evidence), and intervenes in the affairs of mankind (despite all evidence to the contrary), one would ask why would we WANT god to intervene? What is it about religious believers that needs a sky-daddy to solve their problems for them, instead of being willing to take responsibility for their own lives.
I’m no fan of the previous president, but I’m also unsure what his drinking has to do with anything. Are you claiming that his decisions in the White House were altered by his consumption of alcohol? If not, then why bring it up, other than to throw in a simplistic ad hominem attack?
Also, when you call him the “high-priest of this country”, I’m unsure what you mean…
Are you claiming that the US is a religion? I knew somebody who held that view. Things did not exactly end well for him…
Are you claiming that everybody in the US blindly followed his commands? Many of us were against him long before we went in to Iraq…
Or are you making some other claim, that I’m just not understanding?
I don’t think that was the primary thing said when we first went in to Afghanistan, but it is clearly one sign of liberation and freedom that they did not previously have.
What year is it? Seriously, a “ghetto-blaster”?
I’m curious why you misspell it that way? As far as I know, this misspelling is typically intentional from those who do it, because it is derogatory: essentially meaning “one who is evil and unjust”, while muslim means “one who gives himself to god”. So why do YOU use the non typical spelling? Is it on purpose because you know it’s meaning, or is it due to ignorance?
And you know this how? Many people in muslim countries actually enjoy American music and culture…
Then don’t listen to it. That’s your prerogative…
We went there because of the attacks of 9/11. Iraq is a different story, but the invasion of Afghanistan was legit…
Then we failed miserably, since we’re getting almost no oil from Afghanistan and oil prices have done nothing but gone up since we first invaded.
Again your lack of ability to spell these terms has me stumped. Is this misspelling intentional?
Even Bin Laden does not claim the attacks were because of our “culture”. It was due to foreign policy.
Morality? A country that forced it’s women to wear burkas was fighting for morality and human decency?
WOW.
You really are off the deep end here, aren’t you…?
And that has to do with the attacks of 9/11 how exactly? It’s a sad commentary on society, but it’s completely irrelevant to the war(s) we are currently engaged in.
As a country we can focus on more than just one issue at a time you know. It’s possible to do two things at once…
No, those things are totally unrelated.
“World War III”? Really? You don’t think that is a bit of an exaggeration?
I’m curious, do you believe we should have hit back after 9/11? Or what would YOU have done if you had the ability to make the choices at that time?
Yes, we should have been much more surgical about our strikes, and we should not have started a 2nd war (at all, or at least…) until things were wrapped up in Afghanistan. With such a small number of opponents we should not have treated it as we treated our past wars. Our military was not prepared for what we had to deal with, and their training was designed for a very different type of war, which was the cause of many of our issues for a number of years there.
Earlier you said there are 20k in Florida alone. Now you claim that they won’t all fit in Florida. Let’s say that there are 100 times as many in the rest of the country as there are in Florida, that would mean there are 2 million throughout the US total. You’re claiming that 2 million people can’t fit in Florida? It’s population is 18 million.
Also, what does ANY of this have to do with the war in Afghanistan or Fred Phelps and his “crusade”?
You’ve now said essentially this same thing 3 times. And once again I’ll point out that it’s not an “either/or” situation. As a country, we are capable of doing more than one thing at a time.
Not even close.
Again, not even close.
Agreed. His mission is to spew hatred in an attempt to gain publicity for himself and more power and control over his followers. Like any cult leader he sees himself as fighting for a cause against the world.
a “little” suspect? Only a little? Seriously? How can you not see what is so plainly obvious to anybody with even a small understanding of human psychology…?
Which is how all cult leaders see themselves.
Or shouting for hatred. Same difference…
I do believe you’re the first person I’ve come across who does NOT view Phelps and his ilk as the vile, hateful pieces of trash which they are.
I’d urge the rest of the world to ignore him and the rest of his cult members.
Assuming souls exist, have value, can be saved, and that their value is virtually limitless, then PERHAPS. But those are some big assumptions based upon no evidence.
Yeah, I don’t really have a response here. Although I’m sure by now you can guess my thoughts…
Including his own hypocrisy? And yours?
It seems as if No Pot To did reply, however he (she?) chose to do so via email instead of the blog. So I am copying his (her?) email here and responding on the blog (since some of his (her?) thoughts I believe would be of interest to others, as well as me.
As before, I am including my response interspersed in the comment from him (her?):
I am very glad you read my response.
Two only two misspellings I pointed out were those of “Moslem” and “Al Qida”, because I was curious if they were intentional or not. While there were many other misspellings, those were the only two that seemed as if they could have had a purpose behind them (as i mentioned).
As much of what I said directly contradicts Fred Phelps and your own (apparent) views I find this confusing. I made many comments, I’m curious which ones you agree with/disagree with, and based on those you agree with, does that mean you now believe Phelps is not correct?
I’ve never claimed to know everything. I do believe that my opinions are based upon facts and evidence, which I believe leads me to the right views more often than not. And I also believe that being willing to admit when wrong (which admittedly I am not always quick to do) and change views (which I am always willing to do, once I am able to see and take in new information) is important and goes a long way towards helping people learn.
Well when one sets up a straw-man, and then uses that straw-man as a basis for an ad hominem, it’s not exactly the best sign of one’s true willingness to engage in a thoughtful debate.
I agree. Nobody “needs” god. There are some aspects that people do need, which religion in particular, and belief in god more generally, leach on to and exploit (such as reassurance, community, structure, etc). But those things can be found without religion and without faith in false beliefs.
Actually I often try to be very self contained, but I inevitably find how dependent on others I really am.
It does not “bother” me. It just brings up a number of questions.
Well these questions I posed are questions for you. If I had the answers I would not need to ask you.
Many of my questions are about your opinions on some of the things you said before. I am seeking clarification because some of these views seem quite foreign to me.
I am curious why you put quotes around “religious freaks”. It’s not a phrase I used, and in the context of how you put it, it seems as if you’re trying to imply I did say that.
As for what bothers me about believers, it’s simple.
Many believers use their faith as justification for their hatred and their actions. For instance Fred Phelps uses his belief as a cover for his hatred of homosexuals. The 9/11 hijackers used their faith as justification for killing over 3,000 people. The man who shot and killed George Tiller used his faith as justification for stalking, targeting, and killing a man who’s profession he disagreed with. I find these attempts at justification to be repugnant.
The other thing that bothers me about believers is that many try to push their faith on to the lives of others who do not share their religious beliefs. Many of them attempt to have the government endorse their particular religion through having monuments to their holy text put in court houses and other government buildings, by having the government endorse their views of legal relationships (such as marriage), by having schools teach their religious dogma as science, etc. These things encroach upon my life, and the lives of millions of other Americans who do not share those same religious beliefs, and they are clear violations of the US Constitution.
I did absolutely no editing of your comment in moving it to the current location of that blog post. So I’d prefer to not remove it, since it raises a number of questions/issues which I feel warrant further discussion.
I don’t have the current email address of any of them. If you have their contact information I’d be more than happy to invite them to discuss a broad range of topics.
That is true. Which is why I often try to invite those who have different views than my own to participate in discussions on various topics. Perhaps you’d be interested in checking out my Semi Regular Segment titled “The Believer’s Brain” for a few examples of this.
Talk about quote mining when you can’t even include the full sentence.
But even letting that go for the moment, I don’t see the point of this particular quote in the current discussion. Perhaps you’d care to enlighten me?
One of my “funerals”? What?
Once again No Pot To has replied via email:
My response:
As I said in my reply on the blog:
“I don’t have the current email address of any of them. If you have their contact information I’d be more than happy to invite them to discuss a broad range of topics.”
While I doubt this will get anywhere will this person at this point, I do find it interesting that somebody who began a discussion (well attempted to just rant and run) has so far been unwilling to explain in more detail or clarify some of his (her?) less than clear ideas. He (she?) also seemingly has an inability to remain on one topic, instead seeming to jump from one idea to the next with no coherent connection between them (at least none that I can discern).
Once again No Pot To has responded via email:
And my reply:
I’m asking you for their contact information because YOU told me to contact them.
As for the “million dollar education”, I believe you must have me confused with somebody else.
The “glitzy web site” as you put it, has nothing to do with what contacts I have or don’t have. In fact I would guess that most members of Al Qaeda have little contact with bloggers such as myself. It would likely make it too easy for the US military to track down their location if they were regularly visiting blogs and having conversations with people based in the US.
And your final line, I’ll take as a joke, because last I checked nobody alive spent money to send me anywhere, and nobody alive or dead has any right to expect anything from me in the sense which you imply.
I would also like to mention once again, if you wish to reply, I believe the blog is the best place to do so.
Once again No Pot To has responded, this time simply two links to some blag called “The Jawa Report”:
The second link seems to be the contact information for the bloggers, who themselves go by pseudonyms because of apparent death threats against them. Since they seem to bill themselves as an islamic terrorist watchdog blog I am skeptical that they themselves are members of Al Queda.
So that leaves the first link, which seems to be a nothing but a link to the contact page for a group known as Global Islamic Media Front and a note from the bloggers at The Jawa Report egging their readers on to contact this group. While I still don’t quite get WHY he (she?) is so interested in me contacting others when he (she?) is unwilling to answer my direct questions, I figure this might be a good opportunity to learn a bit more about a more strict vision of islam than I have studied before. With that in mind, I sent the following message to the contact page on that site.
I’m curious in your organization, GIMF, and what you believe your goals are. If you’re willing, I’d enjoy a chance to discuss a few topics with you, as I’m always interested in the views of those who see things differently than I do.
Please respond to rodibidably@gmail.com
Thank you in advance for your reply.
Now perhaps No Pot To will answer my many questions directed at him (her?)…?
Damn I wish No Pot To would just respond here so I’d have less typing to do. But alas, here is his (her?) response:
*sigh*
The most obvious question is why would I send them that message? If this is something which No Pot To wishes to send to that website, it seems reasonable for him (her?) to send it on his (her?) own.
The second point is related more to the fact that No Pot to has been continually avoiding my direct questions. So No Pot To, are you ever going to answer my questions to you from my earlier replies?
No Pot To seems to be replying back with regularity, although not making any more sense (and perhaps making less sense) with each email he (she?) sends:
To paraphrase what I said before when you made some of these same imbecilic comments:
The “million dollar education” you mention: I believe you must have me confused with somebody else.
The “glitzy web site” as you put it, is simply a blog. You can create one yourself if you’re interested in a conversation with islamic groups and deciding what text to write to them.
As for a better blog to do this with, why not the first one you linked me to, which seem to have more to do with looking into islamic extremists than I do.
As for why not me… Well I don’t mind having a conversation with almost anybody. But if I am going to have a conversation I’d prefer to have it be ME having a conversation, and I’d rather not just act as a puppet for someone else.
You other line seems to make no sense at all other than an attempt at an ad hominem, so I’ll just ignore that for now…
And again (by now I am getting tired of this pointless blather):
What does that have to do with anything?
And are you ever planning to answer my earlier questions?
Teflon man?
HAHAHHAHAAAA!!!
Is it just me, or does this sound very much like: “I’m rubber, you’re glue”?
Could be, but I’m not sure I would put this in the believer’s brain category, but the disturbed brain altogether. It is rather amusing!
It’s funny, just the other day, I was actually thinking the same thing, that this would make a good Believer’s Brain segment. I’m very confused by most of what he (she?) said, but . It certainly seems to come across as the rantings of a believer (although what he (she?) believes, I have no clue)…
*yawn* And yet another reply. No Pot To really seems to be going off the rails now:
Do you even read my replies?
This matter is like the Skokie matter that we if the ACLU defended. Now, without inhibiting free speech, communites could establish boundaries so that the offenders aren’t in your face.
Phelps was on a public street outside of the cemetery. He was not “in your face” in any sense.
Who has decided that they are able to speak for God? God is the only person who is able to predict our fate. Any person that feels the need to judge another must believe that he/she is as important as God.
If anyone believes they can truly judge humans, I expect their name to be God.
Most preachers, priests, pastors, etc…
You assume god is a real entity…
Some people have that as a job. They’re called judges. In your opinion should we disband the legal system, since you claim people are not fit to judge one another?
You realize that your god’s name is not in fact “god”, right?
I believe in freedom of speech and the right to express your opinion, even if persons deem it as incorrect or “ugly.” For instance, some folks may say I’m an awful person. It’s their right to say so. In line with the first amendment, I have the right to express how sorry I am that Rev. Phelps was sexually assaulted by his father when he was a child.
I celebrate our right to freedom of speech and expression. I thank God for that right everyday. The first Amendment gives all of us the freedom to say and believe anything that we want to.
While I typically try to avoid ad hominem attacks, this made me laugh a bit…
Although I am curious why you thank “god” for our freedom of speech, and not the people who wrote the Constitution giving us that right?
I’m glad I could make you laugh!!! I think laughter is the only thing that keeps us going!!!
As far as the “ad hominem” … “to the man” …. I’m simply writing a response. I had no idea that it would upset you!!!!
I mean no offense to you, but please have enough respect to capitalize “God.” I do not take it lightly for you to quote or paraphrase my words without capitalizing the word “God.”
Again, I am not trying to be difficult, but I can’t understand what is a statement or a question from your previous words.
I will attempt to understand what you have said one last time. Please let me know if there is a question or a statement.
“Although, I am curious why you thank ‘god’ for our freedom of speech, and not the people who wrote the Constitution giving us that right?”
I am confused ….. what is it that you are asking or trying to say??
I was laughing more AT you, than WITH you…
Are you aware of what an ad hominem attach is? Perhaps you may be interested in reading up a bit: http://thinking-critically.com/2010/07/31/issues-and-tactics-to-keep-in-mind-when-debating-part-3/
I found your comment imbecilic, but it did not “upset” me.
Sorry, but no. I don’t capitalize the names of fictional characters just to appease those who believe in them.
You said you thank “god” for freedom of speech.
The holy texts of most major religions (including the 3 abrahamic ones) actually speak out AGAINST individual freedoms, including freedom of speech.
The US Constitution, which is a wholly secular document, is what grants us our freedom of speech.
To thank god for this freedom is not only an insult to the framers of this country, but shows an utter ignorance of your own religious texts and history.
I’m hoping to hear from Jeff Randall. Jeff’s words are as follows: “Although I am curious why you thank “god” for our freedom of speech, and not the people who wrote the Constitution giving us that right?”
I cannot figure out or decipher what statements or questions you are making or asking me. . Let me know when you have a question, statement, answer, or anything else. I hope all is well with you .
cheers, bird
I replied above…
I strongly disagree with the opinion expressed by the author. The freedom of speech is precious, but shouldn’t necessarily apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, at every possible moment, location or event.
What about this concept: Your freedom ends where mine is violated
I couldn’t care less where Fred Phelps and his idiotic clan wish to demonstrate, but funerals shouldn’t be disturbed. Families should be protected from any idiot who wishes to disturb this difficult moment.
And isn’t it wonderful that you live in a society where you can express that disagreement…
If freedom of speech is limited, then it’s not really freedom of speech, is it…?
I’d agree with that… Except in this case, nobody else’s rights were infringed upon.
Do you see that you contradicted yourself here?
“I couldn’t care less where”
“but funerals”
You can’t have it both ways… Either you care, or you don’t…
But the larger disagreement I have is this. If today we limit what you can say at a funeral, tomorrow do we limit what you can say at a court house. Somebody there could be grieving after all.
Or if today we limit Fred Phelps because somebody is offended, tomorrow do we limit Christopher Hitchens because he offends people?
As long as Phelps stays withing the boundaries of the law, and stages his protest on public lands, he has the right.
I find him disgusting and vile. But he has the exact same rights that I demand for myself.
To limit his rights, is to limit my own, and that is something I can not stand by and watch happen.
Fascinating. Liberals simply fascinate me.
If and where Phelps is wrong, why not engage his positions? Why grandstand on the civil right of free speech? By the way, before you chase down a bad trail, I have nothing to do with Phelps, his church – nor do I live in that area. And if I did, I would not even for a second consider darkening their doorway. That said – how and why is the “free speech” issue the one transcendent concern, and not those points of worldview that Phelps advocates for? I came here hoping for a reasoned discussion of the Phelps doctrine, what I got was the standard “I hate all he says, but I respect his right to say it.” (…yawn…)