Legally Recognize Westboro Church As A Hate Group

[INIT915 1,119]

As for the 3/5's compromise, I am a little more OK with that one because I understand what it protected against.

Well, I know all I need to know then.

[x635 4,066]

For the Law Enforcement folks, at what point does free speech become harrasment?

[Stepjam 118]

I think people in general are getting crazier, throughout the spectrum. A group of nutjobs like this will, sooner or later, attract a different kind of nutjob. I think I said this before in this forum some time ago, but I think that eventually the WBC nuts will be the target of a nail bomb, a drive-by shooting, or, dare i say it, a heavily armed lone gunman.

[AFS1970 504]

I just got an E-Mail about a new petition on the Whte House site asking for the Roman Catholic Church to be declared a Hate Group due to their views on same sex marriage. This is exactly what I thinking when I stated replying here. Once we think it is OK to do this to one church then we have to at least passively admit that it is possible to do this to all churches. Welcome to the slipery slope folks.

[INIT915 1,119]

I just got an E-Mail about a new petition on the Whte House site asking for the Roman Catholic Church to be declared a Hate Group due to their views on same sex marriage. This is exactly what I thinking when I stated replying here. Once we think it is OK to do this to one church then we have to at least passively admit that it is possible to do this to all churches. Welcome to the slipery slope folks.

These Church's are free to spew their hate, whether it be celebrating at soldiers' funerals or protesting the funeral of murdered first-graders or whatever they come up with next. Just as those who oppose them are free to criticize them. The First Amendment works both ways.

I've never seen these petitions, but I doubt anyone in their right mind thinks that they are going anywhere. Feel free not to sign them, that's your right. Or, if you agree with them, feel free to sign them, that's your right as well.

[x635 4,066]

They are not a church, just a bunch of nutjobs. They use the church to gain tax-exempt status, so they aren't even paying any taxes. They make their money with their own in house law firm, run by the head nutjobs daughter, and they files numerous BS lawsuits claiming just about everyone is violating their civil rights.

If anyone has Netflix On Demand, there is a documentary on them entitled "Fall From Grace". It's sickening to watch, but I encourage you to watch it to see what a cancer they are on society. All of their kids are being brought up with these disturbing views. They are literally inbreeding the next generation to spew this crap and continue the legacy of hate.

Where do we draw the line between free speech and harrasment? What if they were protesting outside the White House threatening the President? I'm sure that would come to an end real fast.

The only reason they have free speech is because of the soliders who died for it, the same soliders that they descrate and funerals they protest at. Kinda ironic.

And they are a hate group because I hate them.

[helicopper 1,050]

They are not a church, just a bunch of nutjobs. They use the church to gain tax-exempt status, so they aren't even paying any taxes. They make their money with their own in house law firm, run by the head nutjobs daughter, and they files numerous BS lawsuits claiming just about everyone is violating their civil rights.

If anyone has Netflix On Demand, there is a documentary on them entitled "Fall From Grace". It's sickening to watch, but I encourage you to watch it to see what a cancer they are on society. All of their kids are being brought up with these disturbing views. They are literally inbreeding the next generation to spew this crap and continue the legacy of hate.

Where do we draw the line between free speech and harrasment? What if they were protesting outside the White House threatening the President? I'm sure that would come to an end real fast.

The only reason they have free speech is because of the soliders who died for it, the same soliders that they descrate and funerals they protest at. Kinda ironic.

And they are a hate group because I hate them.

There's a difference between protesting outside the White House and threatening the President. Nobody is protected by the Constitution when they make threats against a person (or the President).

It is ironic and their venom is disturbing to say the least but we have to endure that just like we have to endure the neo-nazis, skinheads, and other extremist groups who enjoy the same freedoms that we do.

As for abuses of the IRS code by claiming religious exemptions, they're not the only ones who do it. There're lots of other stories about the same thing in other groups but a dim view is taken on investigating and prosecuting "religious" groups, even the offensive ones.

Gotta take the bad with the good. That's part of what makes this country so interesting!

[AFS1970 504]

These Church's are free to spew their hate... The First Amendment works both ways.

I've never seen these petitions, but I doubt anyone in their right mind thinks that they are going anywhere...

Yes the First Amendment does work both ways, even speech we find disagreable is protected in the public forum.

As for the petitions, I find they show a disturbing lack of basic civics knowledge, as the White House has no authority to do any of the things that these petitions call for. No matter if it is declaring a church a hate group, "allowing" secession of a state, or deporting Piers Morgan. Anyone who starts one of these shows that they slept through school and has no clue about the seperation of powers.

They are not a church, just a bunch of nutjobs. They use the church to gain tax-exempt status, so they aren't even paying any taxes...

The only reason they have free speech is because of the soliders who died for it, the same soliders that they descrate and funerals they protest at. Kinda ironic...

And they are a hate group because I hate them.

There's a difference between protesting outside the White House and threatening the President. Nobody is protected by the Constitution when they make threats against a person (or the President)...As for abuses of the IRS code by claiming religious exemptions, they're not the only ones who do it. There're lots of other stories about the same thing in other groups but a dim view is taken on investigating and prosecuting "religious" groups, even the offensive ones.

Gotta take the bad with the good. That's part of what makes this country so interesting!

They mau be a church full of nutjobs, but they are a church, just like the Universal Life Church can keep you from being drafted and the Moonies can marry hundreds of people at once. Trust me it is not a church that I would ever attend, I'm not even 100% certain they pray to the same God that I do, although they say they do. How about the IRS status of a certain gentleman (and I use the title carefully) who uses the title of Reverend, yet has never actually been pastor of a church, who was only ordained years after his adoption of the title, and who came to prominence leading a false crusade against first responders that included at least one Volunteer Firefighter and I believe several Police Officers. He is usually there within days to protest any death at the hands of the police, but didn't show up in Newtown (thankfully) because the deaths did not meet his special exclusive criteria. Yet his business is still considered a church.

I agree that their free speech comes in part from the soldiers who's deaths they malign. Their rights, just like yours and mine were (and still are) hard won by generations of those who rose to defend them. From the farmers and shopkeepers who answered the call at Lexington & Concord to every current member of our military. I for one am thankful of those rights, but they are not mine to limit, they are mine to share in.

However hating someone does not make them hateful, it makes us hateful. There are groups I hate, like religions that claim to be peaceful but kill thoushands of innocent people who did nothing more than show up for work on a Tuesday morning, while calling America "The Great Satan". Why is everyone affraid to name this religion as a hate group? Oh yeah because we might offend someone who hates us.

This is not only what makes us interesting, it is what makes us free, and it is what makes us the best country in the world to live in, even when we don't like everything that happend here.

[x635 4,066]

It is ironic and their venom is disturbing to say the least but we have to endure that just like we have to endure the neo-nazis, skinheads, and other extremist groups who enjoy the same freedoms that we do.

As for abuses of the IRS code by claiming religious exemptions, they're not the only ones who do it. There're lots of other stories about the same thing in other groups but a dim view is taken on investigating and prosecuting "religious" groups, even the offensive ones.

But it doesn't have to be, and they would be perfect to make an example of.

Also, numerous neo-nazi and skinhead groups are labled as a hate groups. Just because this group is after the GLBT community makes it no different then going after an ethnic minority. I don't put violence out of the picture for Westboro, as I feel they will do whatevever is neccesary to gain attention, especially with the current generation of hate-mongers they are breeding.

Here's some information on hate groups the I hope is interesting to everyone:

http://splcenter.org/Southern Poverty Law Center (Hate Groups)

Yes the First Amendment does work both ways, even speech we find disagreable is protected in the public forum.

As for the petitions, I find they show a disturbing lack of basic civics knowledge, as the White House has no authority to do any of the things that these petitions call for. No matter if it is declaring a church a hate group, "allowing" secession of a state, or deporting Piers Morgan. Anyone who starts one of these shows that they slept through school and has no clue about the seperation of powers.

I agree with many of your points in your post. However, don't underestimate the power of social media. If anything, this petition at least got some attention in the media, and mobilized people against them and their actions. The USA didn't become as great as it is with complacent citizens.

[AFS1970 504]

But it doesn't have to be, and they would be perfect to make an example of.

Also, numerous neo-nazi and skinhead groups are labled as a hate groups. Just because this group is after the GLBT community makes it no different then going after an ethnic minority. I don't put violence out of the picture for Westboro, as I feel they will do whatevever is neccesary to gain attention, especially with the current generation of hate-mongers they are breeding.

Here's some information on hate groups the I hope is interesting to everyone:

http://splcenter.org/Southern Poverty Law Center (Hate Groups)

I agree with many of your points in your post. However, don't underestimate the power of social media. If anything, this petition at least got some attention in the media, and mobilized people against them and their actions. The USA didn't become as great as it is with complacent citizens.

Well it does have to be that way, because we should never decide to make an example of a group by restricting their rights. This is the first step towards tyrany and once we accept it we will probably accept such attacks against lots more groups, until one day we find ourselves in such a restricted group and we are crying out for someone to stand up for our rights. This is an area where we can not afford to become complacent.

The GLBT community is not the same as an ethnic minority, but EMTBravo is not the place to discuss that. However since you list that as a good reason to fight the Westboro Baptist Church, have you also signed the petition to lable the Roman Catholic Church as a "hate group"? After all the petition uses the same claims againt the RCC. I guess it must be hatefulness that causes them to be the foremost charitable organization in the world.

I don't think WBC will become violent but mainly because I think they lack the guts to do something violent. I am not condoning violence but it is a pretty big step from cowardly holding signs outside a funeral to attacking a real live person who can fight back. Plus WBC seems to be all about getting media attention and if you think they are viewed negatively now, imagine how much more negatively they would be viewed if they acted violently. In addition to a good legal team, they also seem to have a pretty good marketing team, and they certainly do not want to jeapordize the small amount of good will shown to them by others.

The Sothern Poverty Law Center is only steps away from being a hate group themselves. I do not consider anything from them to be valid as a primary source.

[INIT915 1,119]

The Sothern Poverty Law Center is only steps away from being a hate group themselves. I do not consider anything from them to be valid as a primary source.

Given that, by your own admission, "... as for the 3/5's compromise, I am a little more OK with that one because I understand what it protected against...", it shouldn't come as a surprise to many of us that your not a supporter of the SPLC.

[x635 4,066]

I agree with Albert Snyder, father of a soldier killed in action, at which the funeral of his son was protested by Westboro.

"This court has no problem with the government sending our children over to these wars, send them back in a body bag and not even have enough respect for that dead soldier to be buried peacefully," Albert Snyder told reporters today.

"Right now, with this opinion, it's everything goes. It's nothing stopping Westboro from going to your daughter's wedding because they think the Catholic Church is bad. And these justices, they don't have to worry about this because the Westboro church and any other nut job like this will not get near their family or their funeral," he said. "They don't have to worry about it. It's us that have to worry about it."

Quote from: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Supreme_Court/westboro-baptist-church-quadruple-military-funeral-protests-supreme/story?id=13039045

At least Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito agreed with the dad:

Justice Samuel Alito, the lone dissenter, said Snyder wanted only to "bury his son in peace". Instead, Alito said, the protesters "brutally attacked" Matthew Snyder to attract public attention. "Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case," he said.

And one of his daughters had this to say about the West Webster Firefighters who were shot and killed:

Westboro Baptist Church spokesperson Margie Phelps tweeted:

”They (firefighters) died for idolatrous worship-of-the-dead.”

The KKK even hates them! That, in itself, says a lot!

Westboro has been banned from Britain. Too bad we can't do the same.

And here's the Wikipedia article describing these wonderful people peacefully abiding by their First Amendment rights. Those defending them solely because of First Amendment rights or using the "if we silenced them then...." need to read up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church

Thanks to the petition, the number one petition currently on the White House website, and the awareness it created, the citizens of this country are starting to stand up to them more and more

[AFS1970 504]

Given that, by your own admission, "... as for the 3/5's compromise, I am a little more OK with that one because I understand what it protected against...", it shouldn't come as a surprise to many of us that your not a supporter of the SPLC.

Your selective quoting does nothing to bolster your point. If you actually read the thread you would be able to see that I was "a little more OK" with a plan that prevented the southern states from buying more population to ensure control of the United States House of Representatives than I was of a court decision to allow a march by a group that advocates the overthrough of our government through a suburban community, which in my opinion was only a ploy to draw attention to their permit fight in Chicago. So yes I will stand by that. I know you want to make the 3/5's rule all about racism, but that just was not the fact, it was about equal representation under the law, which it did it's best under the socioeconomic environment of the time to accomplish. For those of us living in the northeast (the area most of EMTBravo's members are in) it is the only reason that our votes even count when we elect our congress. For the record I am also OK with the Kansas Nebaska compromise which ensured that the number of states with legalized slavery did not overwhelm the number of states that did not have it. If you though ending slavery was the right thing to do, imagine if the congress responsible for sending the amendment to the states had been influenced by counting slaves in the majority of states as voting population, in which case the 13th amendment never would have made it off the house floor.

I agree with Albert Snyder, father of a soldier killed in action, at which the funeral of his son was protested by Westboro.

At least Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito agreed with the dad:

And one of his daughters had this to say about the West Webster Firefighters who were shot and killed:

The KKK even hates them! That, in itself, says a lot!

Westboro has been banned from Britain. Too bad we can't do the same.

Thanks to the petition, the number one petition currently on the White House website, and the awareness it created, the citizens of this country are starting to stand up to them more and more

I have already said that I do not agree with what WBC does, not how they do it. In Connecticut our state governemnt passed a law controlling while allowing protests at funerals. I believe but am not certain that this law was passed before WBC ever came to Connecticut and it does not single them out but places the same restrictions on anyone who chooses to protest at a funeral. It also does not specify military funderals, as was their original strategy. Thus it gives equal protection under the law.

To the best of my knowledge the WBC has never butally attacked anyone, they stand outside with their viscious signs and spew their unwelcome words but contrary to what Justice Alito said, they never attacked any person. There is also no such thing as verbal assault, as assault requires a physical act. It is kind of like my mother used to tell me when I was a kid, sticks and stones may break your bones, but words will never hurt you.

The WBC has a hard uphill journey to make anyone side with their arguments but the idea that the West Webster Firefighters were fighting for idol worship is so laughable as to basically roll off my mind without even needing a reply. Since they claim that this is the status of the U.S. government to justify their protests of military fiunerals they really are just reaching for media attention when they apply that to non government volunteer firefighters or schoolchildren. But I said as much before.

As for invoking the KKK, well they generally hate anyone who isn't them, and as such they have few if any allies. As a matter of fact they often hate each other and as such are an extremely fragmented movement made up of not one organization but a whole lot of smaller similar but hardly friendly organizations (Many years ago I did a report on them for history class, so some things may have changed). However I am confused by invoking them against the WBC, what would the status be of a hate group that hates other hate groups? Should there be a new designation of double hate greoup? Or are they no longer a hate group because now they hate the right people? I personally wouldn't be throwing my lot in with them.

I do not think it is too bad we can't do what Britan does, you see starting around 1775 we fought a war so that we did not have to be British subjects any more. we started that effort with a doccument that contains the words:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

So if you want to be just like England, well take down that American flag, put the Union Jack back up and swear an oath to defend King and Country. Also remember to go to your government approved church on Sunday. I prefer to elect my leaders and have a voice in my government. By the way even the 3/5's rule gave us more votes than the utter and compleat lack of representation in parliment afforded the colonies which lead the Sons of Liberty to dump tea in Boston harbor, an act that in and of itself was illegal under British law.

Now petitioning a branch of the government that has no authority to pass laws is shows an upsetting lack of knowledge of how our government works, yet despite the White House claiming it woulod address any petition that got enough signatures, this is simply not the case. The recent fools errand of asking permission to secede from the union has not been addressed but the petitions looking to remove the first amendment rights from WBC and the second amendment rights from the rest of us are being held aloft by the current administration as a sign that they really do respond to the people.

As Napolean the Pig said "Some animals are more equal than other animals".

[INIT915 1,119]

Your selective quoting does nothing to bolster your point. If you actually read the thread you would be able to see that I was "a little more OK" with a plan that prevented the southern states from buying more population to ensure control of the United States House of Representatives than I was of a court decision to allow a march by a group that advocates the overthrough of our government through a suburban community, which in my opinion was only a ploy to draw attention to their permit fight in Chicago. So yes I will stand by that. I know you want to make the 3/5's rule all about racism, but that just was not the fact, it was about equal representation under the law, which it did it's best under the socioeconomic environment of the time to accomplish. For those of us living in the northeast (the area most of EMTBravo's members are in) it is the only reason that our votes even count when we elect our congress. For the record I am also OK with the Kansas Nebaska compromise which ensured that the number of states with legalized slavery did not overwhelm the number of states that did not have it. If you though ending slavery was the right thing to do, imagine if the congress responsible for sending the amendment to the states had been influenced by counting slaves in the majority of states as voting population, in which case the 13th amendment never would have made it off the house floor.

Your entitled to your interpretation of history.

[INIT915 1,119]

And AFS, just to clarify, the tort definition of assault absolutely does not require a physical act. You are confusing it with the tort definition of battery. They are not interchangeable common law definitions, although people like to do so.

[AFS1970 504]

From one online definition I found I assed the bold myself:

Generally, the essential elements of assault consist of an act intended to cause an apprehension of harmful or offensive contact that causes apprehension of such contact in the victim.

The act required for an assault must be overt. Although words alone are insufficient, they might create an assault when coupled with some action that indicates the ability to carry out the threat. A mere threat to harm is not an assault; however, a threat combined with a raised fist might be sufficient if it causes a reasonable apprehension of harm in the victim.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on if that proverbial raise fist is a physical act or not. However if we extend the term of assault to the realm of the verbal, does this make the new standard for so called assault weapons one that is sufficiently loud? Why then would silencers be illegal?