Unprotected speech

The Supreme Court has decided to take a case that may change the boundaries for types of speech protected by the First Amendment.
The case was brought by a Maryland man whose son’s 2006 funeral was picketed by members of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan. Members of the “church” consist of “pastor” Fred W. Phelps Sr. and his family who preach a false doctrine that basically claims American soldiers are dying in combat because of this country’s increasingly tolerant attitude toward homosexuals. “Thank God for dead soldiers” is just one of the more outrageous signs displayed by members of the Westboro church at services for some of our war dead.
I put “pastor” and “church” in quotations on purpose. Others—one thinks especially of “pastors” who preached segregation and barred blacks from their “churches” at one time—have caused ridicule to be directed at believers in God, but the Phelps case may descend to an even lower level of evil.
The history of the case is this: A jury in Baltimore awarded Albert Snyder more than $10 million in damages. The amount was reduced on appeal and the case was eventually thrown out by the 4th Circuit Court in Richmond, Va. That panel of three judges said the picket signs could not be reasonably understood to be referring directly to Snyder and his late son, Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder. The court said as distasteful as Phelps’ rhetoric is, the expressions are part of a national debate on homosexuality and so it is protected speech.
I called Nat Hentoff, who is regarded by many as an authority on the First Amendment and a fierce defender of all sorts of outrageous speech. Hentoff believes speech that might be construed as leading a person to act “is a clear disturbance of the peace at a religious or any kind of event” and thus “is not protected by the First Amendment.”
Hentoff is right. The venue for military funerals is not a college campus or a political rally. Very often it is a church or synagogue. Even if it is a secular venue, the sexual behavior or orientations of dead soldiers and their families are unknown to the Phelpses, who are using a family’s grief to advance a judgmental attitude that is rejected in the Scripture in which they claim to believe. Someone should remind them that the Devil could quote Scripture, too.
Several years ago, members of the Phelps family picketed a prayer breakfast in Topeka, Kan., at which I was the main speaker. Sitting next to me was then-Kansas Gov. (now Health and Human Services Secretary) Kathleen Sebelius. I was vaguely familiar with the Phelpses but had never seen them up close and I asked the governor about them. I recall her saying, “Oh, don’t worry about them. They picket everybody.” At first I found them faintly amusing, but upon reflection I consider them deeply offensive, un-American, and anti-Christian.
My speech was not curtailed and neither was theirs. The big difference was that the event at which I spoke was quite different from a funeral. Suggesting that a member of the military died because God is judging America for the way it treats homosexuals is worse than outrageous. It is the moral equivalent of crying “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire, which by the way is not protected speech.
The Supreme Court was right to take this case. It should rule in favor of the Snyder family and put a stop to Fred Phelps and his spiritually corrupt family. They are by no decent standard serving God. In fact, quite a good case could be made that they are in service to God’s adversary.
© 2010 Tribune Media Services Inc.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top105 Comments to “Unprotected speech”
The Phelps family seems to turn up at every military funeral. Has anyone examined if church tithing funds are somehow being used to rack up all those frequent flyer miles?
Report comment to moderator
If the first amendmt is there only to protect the speech we like..
Report comment to moderator
That’s true, Sawgunner. We have to protect odious speech as well, but I would be in favor of a time, place and manner restriction, and a funeral qualifies in my opinion.
Report comment to moderator
Dittos NJL on the time-manner-place restriction.
Report comment to moderator
As the wife of a retired veteran, I have to tell you every time I read about the Phelps clan in this situation my blood boils. Anger flares and my blood pressure soars–I can’t believe anyone in their right mind would sink to such a low level.
Which means I get to pray . . .
Report comment to moderator
The first amendment protects this type of protesting. If we start to split hairs it will be a quick slide into any religious or anti-anything-the-government-doesn’t-like being called “hate.”
Yes, this particular case is hateful but as long as they are not breaking a Constitutionally sound law it is protected speech. “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety,” a familiar quote by Benjamin Franklin could also apply to giving up the right of free speech by curtailing the right of fellow citizens we do not agree with.
Report comment to moderator
As odious as I (and Cal Thomas, no doubt) find Phelps & Co., their theology is not as niche as you might think. Plenty of folks dislike Phelps’ tactics while still agreeing with his central theology: that God continues to punish nations for corporate sin.
Report comment to moderator
Many of the WBC policies and practices are typical of non-Biblical derivations. Rules are built upon streams of so-called deductive/inductive reasonings of verbosity, delivered in strong manner.
The young and inexperienced can’t pick up on the subtleties and the maze of staffolded paragraph complexities, loaded with goofiness. And thus, “group-rah-rah” = truth.
Later, some escape by reading the NT and learn to not ADD to the Word of God.
And as they learn, and refuse to be intimidated, the bondage-lovers get very upset and squeal.
But so what, keep learning.
“Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.” (Ga 5:1)
Report comment to moderator
BUDDY – We are not talking about nations here, but grieving families. The Phelps groups do not exhibit the grace of the Gospel.
Report comment to moderator
We need to be jealous of the freedom of speech.
Even odious speech.
Including Phelps.
Including Jeremiah Wright.
The two are equivalent, but come from opposite directions. They arrive at the same place.
Hatred of what America is.
A Free Country.
Report comment to moderator
Just a guess, but I suspect Phelps will win.
The court could rule that those that select funeral sites have the freedom to take things to more private settings.
Report comment to moderator
I know an ex-marine (actually, they say there are no “ex”-marines) who rides a Harley and is part of a “Patriot Guard” that has also shown up at funerals of soldiers to protect them from the Phelps flip-outs. I also respect his freedom to get in the face and in the way of Fred Phelps and his mean minions to protect mourners.
Notice the picture of the offensive signs are on a public highway and not necessarily near a cemetery. They may be exceptions, but the Patriot Guard has done a rather good job of keeping these rude people out of the face of mourners.
Report comment to moderator
I think they have freedom of speech, but that they will answer to God someday for how they used it.
This makes me think of a somewhat related situation in Chicago, when homosexual activists were picketing a church a friend of mine attended–a church known in the community for its work with the poor, but also known because its pastor preached freely against homosexuality. Did I mention the church was mixed racially?
Well, activists made the mistake of showing up with a chant that showed they knew nothing about the church: “Racist, sexist, anti-gay, born-again bigots go away.” Unfortunately for them, the church was in fact not racist (and I assume not sexist either). Two busfuls of members of a local black church showed up, and the black choir stood outside the church singing. It drowned out the chants, showed the idiocy of the chants, and protected the church. The protestors left early that day.
I daresay local churches near the Phelps might try something of the sort themselves.
Report comment to moderator
I want to know what other participants on this blog know about the funding of Phelps and about their sincerity, which I do not presume at all. My suspicion is that he is a duplicitous “double-agent” of hate–trying to stigmatize and stereotype those who legitimately and respectfully oppose homosexuality and the homosexualist agenda.
Report comment to moderator
Good to know, Joel Mark. Free speech is really the best way to answer offensive free speech.
Report comment to moderator
God bless Albert Snyder and his family and the memory of their loved one, Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder. However this case is decided, we should all be far more honorably aware of the name of Matthew A. Snyder than those opportunists and abusers who are dancing on his grave.
It seems that a ruling in favor of the Snyders based on the distinctive location of a funeral, cemery or church context, may not change things much. My understanding (correct me if I am wrong) is that they are already making their stink from public places far enough way that their free speech cannot legally be stopped. This is what my friend tells me who guards the mourning families. However, maybe they encroached too far in the case of the Snyder funeral and should pay for that. And if the Snyders get the decision and the money, it may drain the resources of the illegitimate and odius protesters.
Report comment to moderator
Those are nicely and professionally prinbted signs aren’t they?
Report comment to moderator
Free speech is free. It’s also public and cannot force its way unwanted into private gatherings.
Report comment to moderator
I like Cheryl’s example the best. If others continue to condemn such speech, it will eventually crawl back under the rock it came from. God bless all the families who have lost loved ones fighting for our country.
Report comment to moderator
#14
Joel,
Interesting point.
There could be a lot of media attention given their way, for agendas of those that look farther down the road…
..those opposed to ANYTHING Christian.
In other words, the “Phelps” issue comes in handy.
:-O
Report comment to moderator
#9: “The Phelps groups do not exhibit the grace of the Gospel.”
Clearly they do not, yes.
#9: “We are not talking about nations here, but grieving families.”
I’d say “we”, or at least Cal Thomas, are talking about both, given he says:
“who preach a false doctrine that basically claims American soldiers are dying in combat because of this country’s increasingly tolerant attitude toward homosexuals.”
When Thomas says “preach a false gospel” he seems to disagree with the idea that God might be actively punishing the United States (at least in this particular fashion, i.e. dead soldiers) for its corporate sin. So Thomas is making a theological statement here.
Report comment to moderator
What might be the Phelps’ theological position?
Is he not college trained?
Perhaps he believes Christ only died for the elect.
Thus, he would believe that the homosexual is non-elect.
Thus, non-redeemable.
A country, in his reasoning, compromising with the homosexual, would then be reaping a non-elect judgment.
Taking it one step futher, why should he/WBC not be “glad” in God’s execution of His Sovereign will?
Would this be his reasoning?
Agree/disagree?
Report comment to moderator
#22:
If you read the material on their website, its clear they are pretty hyper-Calvinist. Basically their “message” is that God hates everyone except the elect, Jesus died only for the elect, etc.
What I don’t get, though, is that if they really believe that, why is it at all important to “spread” the message around to people who are condemned to hell anyway? What purpose does it serve?
They also don’t seem to be entirely consistent, as a group, in holding to their hyper-Calvinist theology. The following quote is from their list of upcoming picket locations:
“That is correct, if not for that disobedient woman [Judy Peck, Matthew Shepard's mother] lying to the little boy. I say, if she and her capon (now divorced from him) husband had one time told little Matthew some truth from the Bible – he would be alive To Day!”
But that contradicts their hyper-Calvinism. If Matthew Shepard was not saved, died, and is now separated from God, then he was not among the elect. If he was not among the elect then whether his mother spoke biblical truth to him is irrelevant to his eventual lack of salvation.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark #12 – the term is “former Marine.” While the difference between that and “ex-Marine” may seem like hair-splitting, it is an important nuance to the Marines. I have this on good authority from my best friend who is a former Marine.
Report comment to moderator
Nobody’s mentioned buffer zones. NJL – didn’t the USSC uphold buffer zones around abortion clinics for anti-abortion speech?
Report comment to moderator
But then again, buffer zones were locally-enacted laws. This is a money judgment between two private parties. Which brings to mind that not all speech is protected in a private dispute, such as slander and defamation. Also, there is the so-called “fighting words” doctrine where speech tending to incite an immediate fight or riot is not protected from charges of disorderly conduct and the like. But there again, that’s public ordering, versus private ordering.
Report comment to moderator
Fifty or 100 years ago, had people been marching to demand that same sex marriage be legalized, hordes of Christians would have turned out in force, and their signs and slogans would have been just as bad Fred Phelps’ signs and slogans are.
Imagine what the reaction from Christians would have been if the Supreme Court of Iowa had legalized gay marriage in 1909, instead of 2009. Anyone who thinks it would have been polite, measured disagreement, and nothing at all like Fred Phelps’ behavior, is just being silly.
That’s why modern evangelicals hate Phelps. He embarrasses them by reminding them that not long ago, most Christians would have reacted the same way.
Report comment to moderator
I put “pastor” and “church” in quotations on purpose. Others—one thinks especially of “pastors” who preached segregation and barred blacks from their “churches” at one time—have caused ridicule to be directed at believers in God
Cal, you mean like “pastor” Jerry Falwell, your old boss at the Moral Majority, and his segregated Thomas Road Baptist “Church”?
Report comment to moderator
Those who would claim that God is punishing America for her corporate sin betray their own ignorance and their theological heresy. We do NOT know the mind of God on these matters, and we do NOT know what God is doing when he allows men and women in the military to die. There is no revelation at all in Scripture about IEDs, guns, or American soldiers. To pretend that we have the knowledge to make those sorts of calls displays the same incredible ignorance of those who would claim that the earthquakes in Haiti or the tsunami in the South Pacific in 2006 or 9/11 were God’s judgment. Really? When did God let you in on his plan?
Sometimes pain, suffering, and even death are part of God’s mercy — sometimes he uses them to wake us up from our sin. Sometimes they are his judgment. But in neither case is it for us to say. We can proclaim and defend the truth with all sincerity and love, but we cannot claim to know the mind of God by saying what is or is not his judgment.
In fact, some of the worst judgment described in the Bible is in Romans 1 — God gives people over to the desires of their heart. Fred Phelps and his minions follow the heresies of Job’s friends — suffering is only the result of sin. We should be more inclined to tremble at the fact that the Phelps clan seems to have no awareness of their disgusting public sin and have apparently been given over to their hate. God have mercy.
Report comment to moderator
Mcdivitt – give it up (your hatred of all things Christian) – it is consuming you and you are becoming unhinged. In case you weren’t aware, arguments along the lines of “such and such would have happened in such and such a situation long ago” are extremely weak. Nobody knows what “would have happened” in circumstances that didn’t actually happen. Try and stick to the facts, please.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah, Buzzy, it’s really “unhinged” to posit that 100 years ago Christians would have reacted vociferously to the legalizing of gay marriage.
Sure it is.
(Odd how your concern for “civility” seems to come and go, too.)
Report comment to moderator
Welcome back Buzzy !!!!!!!!
Report comment to moderator
Thank you Rondu. Good to be back! Good to see you too.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark (#14),
You make a great point!
After all, since Phelps and his entourage are masquerading as humans, why can’t their supposed christianity be equally phony?
Report comment to moderator
Thank you Buzzy. “Former Marine” it is.
Mcdivitt, I was around fifty years ago (pretty young though), and I am not sure your rather stereotypical presumptions about “hoards of Christians” are correct. But fifty years ago and today, Christians would be right and just to protest any attempt to enforce a radical change in the core definition of marriage to suit the demands of homosexual militants. But the opposition to such radical militancy should be clear, bold and respectful.
It is inappropriate to try to smear the past based on pure presumption with the actions of Fred Phelps and his minions. Blame Phelps in particular and don’t try to smear others by extention or presumption, past, present or future.
Mcdivitt, please imagine what the reaction from NON-Christians would have been if the Supreme Court of Iowa had legalized gay marriage in 1909, instead of 2009. They might well have been more violent still. But who knows (it was your suggestion to “imagine” so I am just responding).
Report comment to moderator
Mcdivitt – your basic error is that you construct an imaginary universe. 100 years ago there was still some sanity left in society. Judges would not have been as absurd in their rulings as they are today, where basic logic, human nature, and common sense, have all been tossed overboard. So any thinking human being 100 years ago, of any religion, would have been aghast at such chinanigans on the part of government. What I was saying was weak in your argument is this: you basically say, people of a certain religion 100 years ago would have reacted badly to circumstances that didn’t actually exist, if in fact they had existed. Therefore, people of that same religion 100 years later must be bad people, although none of the people in the latter group (i.e., those alive today) were even alive 100 years ago. Pardon me if I don’t find that terribly convincing.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark – you and I must be on the same wavelength!
Report comment to moderator
you basically say, people of a certain religion 100 years ago would have reacted badly to circumstances that didn’t actually exist, if in fact they had existed. Therefore, people of that same religion 100 years later must be bad people, although none of the people in the latter group (i.e., those alive today) were even alive 100 years ago. Pardon me if I don’t find that terribly convincing.
What in God’s name are you talking about?
Where did I say modern Christians are bad people?
I’ve said no such thing, and I don’t believe any such thing.
I don’t divide people into “good” and “bad”.
Christians aren’t “bad” people.
Fred Phelps and his crew aren’t “bad” people.
Homosexuals aren’t “bad” people.
What in God’s name are you talking about?
Report comment to moderator
Mcdivitt wrote; “Anyone who thinks it would have been polite, measured disagreement, and nothing at all like Fred Phelps’ behavior, is just being silly.”
I wonder what makes you feel qualified to speculate on your own terms? The same presumption you seem to apply to hypothetical “Christians” in 1909 might be far more true of non-Christians in 1909. Who knows? Why speculate?
Mcdivitt wrote: “That’s why modern evangelicals hate Phelps. He embarrasses them by reminding them that not long ago, most Christians would have reacted the same way.”
Mcdivitt, are you the sort of critic that sees only the worst in evangelicals no matter what they say or do? Would you rather we did not object to Phelps? You criticize based on presumption on your part. You don’t know our motives. We do not like Phelps for the same exact reasons that non-Christians and leftists do not like him. Phelps is wacked out and very cruel. Like many non-Christians, we love America and we are grateful to soldiers who serve.
Report comment to moderator
Mcdivitt – I’m talking about post #27.
Report comment to moderator
Rondu – remember our do-not-read list for anti-Christians who do not post in good faith? Based on post 38 I think I’ll add Mcdivitt to that list.
Report comment to moderator
It’s not really “unhinged” to posit that 100 years ago NON-Christians would have reacted vociferously to the legalizing of homosexual marriage.
Report comment to moderator
Mcdivitt – your basic error is that you construct an imaginary universe
Ah, now that’s rich!
I simply point out what everyone knows – that not that long ago, the average Christian’s view of homosexuals and homosexuality was a lot closer to Fred Phelps’ than to contemporary evangelicals.
And you and others not only deny that with a straight face, several of you have said on this thread and the other Phelps thread that the Bible doesn’t teach that God judges nations for sin. Some have even claimed that Phelps’ belief that God judges nations for sin is one of the doctrines that mark him as a heretic; a false Christian.
So some of you are actually claiming that Christians don’t believe God judges nations for sin?
And I’m the one who’s supposed constructing an imaginary universe?
Report comment to moderator
Mcdivitt – I’m talking about post #27.
I said nothing in #27 that implies that Christians are bad people.
Report comment to moderator
Mcdivitt – your understanding of Christanity is contemptuous and cliched. You love to cast aspersions upon people you hate without having any kind of nuanced understanding of their belief system. You make all sorts of assumptions based on your own fantasies. As I mentioned to Rondu, you do not post in good faith, and hence, I will from now on be scrolling past your posts without wating my time reading them. You’re yet another left-wing, hate-filled anti-Christian bigot. How boring. Have a good life.
Report comment to moderator
Hilarious, Buzzy!
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy (#41),
Yes.
But, I was just thinking that he is actually a former poster who has chosen to change his name.
Report comment to moderator
MCDIVITT
Is twisting what everyone writes your trademark? – you haven’t made sense, just blustered about – whatever anyone would have done a hundred years ago isn’t relevant, this is 2010, try and stay on subject, if that’s possible.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, Victoria.
Report comment to moderator
Rundu – 47 – I think you’re right.
Report comment to moderator
After #49 – I think we can all narrow it down to two posters -
Report comment to moderator
My suspicion stands that this Phelps fellow and his followers are not even Christian at all. But God gets to decide that in the end. I can still suspect it.
To quote leading evangelical Cal Thomas: “In fact, quite a good case could be made that they are in service to God’s adversary.”
Report comment to moderator
Joel
We will know them by their fruit.
Christ told us to ‘dust off our feet’ when people don’t want to hear.
Christ never told Believers to run down the road after those who didn’t want to listen. IF Phelps read the Bible he wouldn’t be running around disturbing others when they mourn their loved ones, it isn’t part of spreading the Gospel.
We as Believers should DISTANCE ourselves as far from this group as possible.
Report comment to moderator
I’d go along with a buffer zone, too, Buzzy.
This isn’t just a free speech case. It was filed as a tort — intentional infliction of emotional distress — so we’ll have to wait to see how that develops, too. Snyder was not a homosexual, so the speech against homosexuals is not directed at his family or against him. The Supremes have to be very careful that they don’t allow a situation where people can sue at the drop of a hat just because they are offended. We as Christians were outraged and offended when we heard about the artwork of a cross in urine. That’s a form of speech, just as the Mohammed cartoons are. We can’t allow a cause of action that will silence some in favor of others. IIED cases were new when I was in law school. Which outweighs the other?
Report comment to moderator
It’s a hard case, that’s for sure.
At any rate, free speech in America is rapidly eroding. In ten or twenty years, free speech as we understand it today, will be a thing of the past.
Report comment to moderator
McDivit — since you are obviously referring to me when you say that people are constructing an imaginary universe by claiming that Christians don’t think that God judges the nations for their sins, you clearly didn’t read my post. I said that it was heresy to claim that we have revelation from God to know what is or is not judgment from heaven.
Obviously Christians claim to know this all the time. They’re just horribly wrong when they do so.
And yes, I do believe that God can judge nations for sin. The Bible clearly teaches that. I only said that we cannot claim to know when God is or is not doing that. It’s like the Book of Job — even though Job’s friends try to tell him that his suffering is the result of his sin, it isn’t. Suffering or death is not always punishment. That sort of retribution theology has been around for thousands of years, but it is also consistently debunked by Scripture. Sometimes God punishes people by physically destroying them. Sometimes God punishes people by allowing them to spiritually destroy themselves. Sometimes God blesses people by giving them all they want or desire, and sometimes God blesses people by taking it all away.
Phelps is a fool and a heretic because (among other things) he claims to know the mind of God, which he does not.
Report comment to moderator
#56:
Here’s one that might hit a little closer to home:
http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/1965_The_Tornado_the_Lutherans_and_Homosexuality/
Skip down to his point #6 at the bottom. To be fair, Piper stops short of making definitive statements, but he certainly goes right up to the precipice. (And arguably crosses over it and into Phelps territory, even if he doesn’t adopt the same hateful tone.)
Is Piper a fool and heretic? (Or, more charitably, is this *particular* blog post foolish and heretical?)
I’m not trying to single out Piper here; my point is that its *really easy* to take Phelps to the mat on this issue because his overall demeanor is so abhorrent.
(Also, to be fair, lots of pro-Piper folks took him to task for that post.)
Report comment to moderator
From the Piper article:
6. Conclusion: The tornado in Minneapolis was a gentle but firm warning to the ELCA and all of us: Turn from the approval of sin. Turn from the promotion of behaviors that lead to destruction. Reaffirm the great Lutheran heritage of allegiance to the truth and authority of Scripture. Turn back from distorting the grace of God into sensuality. Rejoice in the pardon of the cross of Christ and its power to transform left and right wing sinners.
Yes, by Hans’ standard, Piper is a fool and a heretic.
Report comment to moderator
I suppose I shall temper my language (though I do think that Phelp’s consistent teaching and life warrant the descriptions of “fool” and “heretic”) and say that I would take Piper to task for that post too, not because I think that he is wrong that homosexuality is wrong or that God controls the weather, but because I do not believe that Piper has any biblical warrant for interpreting the weather as the voice of God. Piper would have done better to plead with the ELCA to repent on the basis of biblical standards of truth rather than cloud reading.
Report comment to moderator
McDivitt,
If people had been marching to demand same sex marriage 100 years ago, what do you think would’ve been the reaction of the non-Christians?
Report comment to moderator
Ree, back then the percentage of people who didn’t profess Christianity and attend church regularly was very low. There were definitely non-Christians in 1909 America, but not that many. What would there reaction have been? I imagine that it would have been pretty much the same as the Christian reaction I posited. There would have been some who were neutral, and some in favor, but the vast majority of them would have been as disgusted and outraged as the Christians.
Why do you ask?
Report comment to moderator
NJL – #64 – I tend to agree with you. The First Amendment doesn’t exist to protect non-offensive or popular speech. Nobody would try to suppress that. Its usefulness is in protecting unpopular or offensive speech. Still, as I mentioned there are some doctrines like “fighting words” and common-law slander/defamation that show not all speech is protected. The crucifix in urine case was a little different because the controversy there was over public funding. I don’t think anyone thought it should be censored, but people were asking, why do our hard-earned tax dollars have to pay for this? In fact, I remember one good-guy debater taking on the cries of “censorship” by pointing out that, what the NEA supporters were saying is, “we’re on the cutting edge; you buy the scissors.” I thought that was clever and pithy.
Report comment to moderator
#61 – “Ree, back then the percentage of people who didn’t profess Christianity and attend church regularly was very low.”
Actually, the rates of Christians to non-Christians and church attenders to non-church attendants in America has been rather static over the years (with some ebb and flow). And at that time, the modernist controversy (liberalism) was coming. Darwinism was catching on. Freud was in full atheist assault and had tons of followers. There were lots of non-Christians back then.
Phelps is responsible for his actions, not other hypothetical people (Christian or not). Presumptions over how others in different times might have done similar things are completely inconclusive.
Your question was good, Ree.
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy, maybe the Mohammed cartoons are a better example. They are offensive, certainly to Muslims. We wouldn’t like it if Jesus were treated that way — we know this because we’ve seen cartoons like that. But there is a part of me that wishes some news organization had had the guts to stand up to them and publish them here in the States. Publishing them would not be shouting “fire.” The idea that we can sue because we are “offended” doesn’t sit well.
Report comment to moderator
Phelps is responsible for his actions, not other hypothetical people (Christian or not)
Of course Phelps is responsible for his actions.
When have I ever asserted otherwise?
The statement that most Christians 50 or 100 years ago would have been more in agreement on how to talk about homosexuality with Phelps than with you or Hans implies that Phelps isn’t responsible for his actions how, exactly?
I’m dying to read your explanation.
Report comment to moderator
People here, myself included, have no problem with Phelps speaking. The issue here is where he is speaking — at a funeral.
Homosexuality is a sin. But to use a person’s funeral, someone who wasn’t even a homosexual, to make your point is nasty. Phelps isn’t Jesus kicking the moneychangers out of the temple when he does this.
Report comment to moderator
That’s not the whole truth. Phelps has been traveling and speaking with his “God Hates Homosexuals” message for nearly 20 years. It’s only in the past 5 or 6 that he’s taken to protesting at the funerals of dead soldiers. Partly because there were hardly any soldiers dying before the Iraq war. And other evangelicals were condemning Phelps and his message long before he started picketing soldiers’ funerals.
That may be the issue before the court, but it’s not the issue of why other Christians condemn him. They were doing that long before his soldiers’ funeral nonsense.
And I say “other”, because by any historical definition, Phelps is a Christian.
Report comment to moderator
McDivitt,
As Joel Mark pointed out, the percentage of Bible-believing Christians was not nearly as large as you claim. I asked because you said,
I don’t agree that most Christians would’ve acted like Phelps and family at any time. I do agree, though, that the idea of same-sex marriage would’ve been outrageous to people 100 years ago, Christian or not. In fact, it would’ve been outrageous to people in every nation in the world at every time in history prior to the past decade or so. So your suggestion that Phelps’s reaction is characteristic of Christianity is baseless, and so is your implication that there’s anything specifically Christian about the opposition to “same-sex marriage.”
“Same-sex marriage” is outrageous and evil, and so is Fred Phelps and family. And both would’ve been roundly condemned by most people in the past.
Report comment to moderator
He’s a vicious person and he misreads the Bible, even if he is “right” about a few things. That’s why he is “condemned” as you call it. Yes, he’s a Christian, but the thing about Christians is that they can be “wrong” and until they die they have an opportunity to grow in the Word. Can’t say whether Phelps and company will do that, not my call.
Judge him all you want, but the only one who will truly judge his Christianity is God, Christ himself.
Report comment to moderator
And that’s something to count against us? We condemn him not because he reminds us of some prior Christian standard of behavior but because Fred Phelps’ and his family were evil before the Iraq war and they’re evil today.
Report comment to moderator
“Same-sex marriage” is outrageous and evil, and so is Fred Phelps and family. And both would’ve been roundly condemned by most people in the past.
Really? You mean like the Puritans and other early settlers who made homosexuality a crime punishable by death?
Where do you think they got that idea?
Report comment to moderator
What the heck do the Puritans have to do with picketing funerals?
Report comment to moderator
Hilarious, Ree!
Report comment to moderator
McDivitt, I wonder what historical definition you are referring to. All I know is if a court attempted to legalize same-sex marriage, the court would have been stopped because the courts did not have the power to legislate yet. Also, pretty much everyone would have been against it. But like the Christians of today most would not be taking the view of this Phelps. That would be because God does not hate us, and all of us fell short of His glory and have sinned. If He hated homosexuals for their sin, then He would have hated all those of all sexualities for their sins. I am glad God is not a God of hate.
Hans, as a piece of advice, learn to say the Truth in love, not in a contentious spirit. In general, universal claims tend to be wrong.
To Victoria, distancing yourself from those whom you disagree with is un-Biblical, as we are to, yes, not be of the world, but we are to live in it. Christ said to dust your feet off when someone has heard the gospel and seen the Truth and has seen His power at work and still refuse to accept Him. Dusting the feet off is the point where one gives up on another person, and McDivitt is not nearly that forgone as you claim. In fact I think their is much potential in him. If you are referring to Phelps, he is claiming something false and yes should be distanced from.
To Buzzy, the last 2 points apply to you as well. Also Phelps is protected under the 1st Amendment though his freedoms of speech, religion and assembly, which apply to his protests at these funerals. Those soldiers they protest died so that they could protest. I will not dishonor the sacrifice those men made by shutting down the protesters, even though those protesters wish to use their freedom to dishonor their memory. And I fully approve and pray for the former marines who protest the protesters, and I do have a few friends who would join this, however they are all involved in overseas missions, which is why I know them actually.
Report comment to moderator
Mcdivitt – 73
What did you expect – Ree asks a logical question and you become “Hilarious” ? -
Report comment to moderator
I’m not trying to be funny. You’ve baited and switched.
Report comment to moderator
The point, which I think you got, Ree, is that in many states, homosexuality was a capital crime for a long, long time. Those laws were passed by Christians. Decreeing that homosexuals should be put to death is a lot closer to Fred Phelps’ view that tolerating homosexuality brings God’s judgment than it is to the more popular evangelical view that homosexuality is just like any other sin, one sin among many. Some of us eat too much, others don’t pray often enough, some are lazy, and some have sex with a person of their same gender, and God is no more unhappy with the last one than with the first three.
Like I said, I think you understood my point. Which is why you “bait and switched”, which I thought was both hilarious and revealing.
Then you accuse ME of it!
Even more hilarious!
Report comment to moderator
So, tell me, Ree – where did the Puritans and Pilgrims get the idea to make homosexuality a crime punishable by death?
Were they Christians?
Report comment to moderator
Rom 116 – post 74
YOU WROTE:… “To Victoria, distancing yourself from those whom you disagree with is un-Biblical, as we are to, yes, not be of the world, but we are to live in it. Christ said to dust your feet off when someone has heard the gospel and seen the Truth and has seen His power at work and still refuse to accept Him. Dusting the feet off is the point where one gives up on another person, and McDivitt is not nearly that forgone as you claim.”
I didn’t mention McDivitt in that post -
Disagreeing is one thing, opposing Christ and the Bible is another. Jesus never spent his time racing down the road to beg anyone to believe in HIM, he told us to ‘dust our feet’ – you can choose for yourself how you wish to post, and I will do the same.
Report comment to moderator
Why do you imply that the Puritans singled out homosexuality for harsh punishment?
Report comment to moderator
Ree –
We have several here who are trying to change the subject of this thread – it reminds me of the famous game of UPROAR – it’s played to disrupt discussion. They turn the subject around in such a way as it becomes all about them, or quibble over almost anything which is not germane to the discussion.
If we all ignore their posts, the discussion can continue. Cal Thomas has written an informative, piece which deserves our attention, not the PLACARD WAVING posters here on this thread.
Report comment to moderator
I didn’t.
We’re not talking about whether they thought it was the only sin worthy of capital punishment.
Which I think you know.
The fact remains, no matter how obtuse you pretend to be, that their Christian view of homosexuality was much closer to Fred Phelps’ view than to the one espoused by most evangelicals today, which is that homosexuality isn’t something to get all that bent out of shape about.
You can pretend like you don’t get the point all you want, but the more you do it, the sillier you make yourself look.
Report comment to moderator
This case has little if anything to do with The Phelps’, The Snyders’, homosexuality, or dead soldiers. It has to do with our constitution and a person’s right to say what they believe.
I agree with almost everyone on this blog that the views of the Phelps’ are not Christ honoring. However, the atheists are jumping for joy that so many are willing to give up their constitutional rights in order to silence some one because they disagree with them.
Report comment to moderator
Free speech in America is going the way of the dinosaur, and there’s nothing anyone can do about it. It’s terribly sad, but it’s just the way it is.
Report comment to moderator
If you think that Christians today are saying that homosexuality, or sin in general, isn’t something to get all bent out of shape about, then you aren’t listening.
Report comment to moderator
Keep on truckin’, Ree!
Report comment to moderator
The Phelps’s web address shows what their emphasis is. If you don’t know what their web address is, you can look it up, because I won’t write it. The Puritan message, on the other hand, was more along the lines of God hates sin. The Phelps’s emphasize people who commit a specific sin as the objects of God’s hatred. The Puritans’ theology emphasized sin, itself, and not the individual sinners as the objects of God’s hatred.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, McDivitt, I will–I guess. The fact that your responses are getting more and more irrelevant apparently indicates that you see how ridiculous your arguments are now.
Report comment to moderator
Always a little disturbing to have one’s roots pop up again. Like having a very disreputable uncle or aunt be released from prison and start robbing banks again. Phelps is good “old time” religion that hasn’t been sprayed with sanitizer.
A reasonable solution to the issue of “homosexual marriage” is to allow homosexuals to form legal relationships, and call it something else, such as civil union or domestic partnership.
The steadfast opposition to this reasonable solution (now, to my surprise), a widely supported and enacted law in my state, Washington, is perhaps a sign that conservative Christianity is on its way out, as is civilization.
Report comment to moderator
State criminal statutes recognize what the society considers to be a reprehensible crime, not what a religion or the Bible teaches. At this point in time, there is a movement to increase the punishment of sexual deviants, to keep them in jail not only longer but for life. That legislation won’t come about because of Christianity, but because the society is sick and tired of having its children and women attacked, rapes and murdered. It’s long overdue. That’s how societies work.
Report comment to moderator
Good night, everyone. We can continue this tomorrow.
Report comment to moderator
Mcdivitt, when I said that Phelps is responsible for his actions, not other hypothetical people (Christian or not), I was making a point that stands on its own. Why did you presume that I was suggesting anything about you thinking otherwise? Perhaps thou doest protest too much.
But you did try to say that hypothetical people would act just like Phelps. This, you do not know and I think it is more fair to just blame Phelps for Phelp’s actions and not to smear other hypothetical people of other times by presuming they would do the same, or not.
The statement that most NON-Christians 50 or 100 years ago would have been more in agreement with Phelps on how to talk about homosexuality is just as baseless as saying that most Christians 50 or 100 years ago would. Let Phelps be responsibile for his own actions and people 100 years ago resonsible for theirs. Sound fair?
Report comment to moderator
110 years ago, no media would be paying attention to Phelps, most likely.
Report comment to moderator
Cal Thomas’ argument is remarkably weak.
In other words, he argues that the Phelps family should be shut down precisely because of the content of their speech (i.e., it is not “serving God” and may be serving the devil). That simply won’t fly in America.
Thomas mentions, but does not in the least elaborate on, the common “fire in the theater” analogy. But the entire point in that analogy is that your speech may be restricted if it is delivered under circumstances that put others in danger. In other words, it’s not that you can never say “fire,” it’s that you can’t say “fire” in a crowded theater.
I am no Constitutional scholar, but I suspect a case could be made that public protests against the deceased must keep at least a certain distance from funerals. Respect for the dead is a widely held community value on which a ruling like that could be based. But unlike Thomas seems to propose, you cannot restrict people’s right to say nasty things about the deceased. Much less can you rule that “suggesting that a member of the military died because God is judging America for the way it treats homosexuals” is speech so vile that it is no longer protected.
Report comment to moderator
#94: I agree: there might be something to be said for not harassing funeral-goers, but the Phelps family does have the right to protest peacefully.
Report comment to moderator
As for the side issue about what historical Christian attitudes have been:
1) I love how you all are so sure about the hypothetical reactions of long dead people to a current issue. It must be a fascinating talent: tell me, what exactly would George Washington have thought of the Toyota recalls? Would he have gone with GM?
2) I love how you all are so comfortable generalizing these long dead people into a single group with a single reaction.
3) You have a Bible and I have a Bible. We don’t need to guess and moan about which hypothetical reaction most directly lines up with Christianity: the objective standard for what the Christian view on the subject should be is sitting on our bookshelves.
Report comment to moderator
what the protesters did was horrible but I have to agree with Chas #10 – I simply choose the lesser evil here
Report comment to moderator
JJF: “I am no Constitutional scholar, but I suspect a case could be made that public protests against the deceased must keep at least a certain distance from funerals.”
No, you are not, and if you read the opinions, you would know that they are not protesting against the deceased.
Report comment to moderator
“…is perhaps a sign that conservative Christianity is on its way out, as is civilization…”
r.n.
You suspect there may be future tensions?..
“And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation [even] to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.” (Da 12:1)
Report comment to moderator
Although Phelps’ speech is terrible, it should be protected. I can see some restrictions based on location, but those need to be fairly limited. If this speech is found to be “too offensive” or something, how long before that standard extends to other “offensive” speech – saying homosexuality is a sin, connecting Islam and violence, or any other politically unpopular speech could be censored.
From a theological standpoint (Gospel Grace, as Ivan pointed out), obviously they should stop. But I do not want the SCOTUS tuling based on that reasoning – it’s not their job.
Report comment to moderator
JJF,
I too am a bit confused by Cal’s comments, at least for an editorial in this forum. Just two weeks ago, the Bayly brothers on BaylyBlog were arguing that God does judge America specifically for tolerating things like gay marriage. The Bayly brothers are two of the most prominent and powerful pastors in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), which is the very denomination associated with World Magazine.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t think that Cal Thomas is saying that God doesn’t judge our nation for our acceptance of sexual immorality (of all kinds) and the slaughter of our children. I think he’s saying that picketing a funeral and declaring that God killed the soldier because of homosexuality is outrageous.
Report comment to moderator
Exactly, Ree.
Report comment to moderator
Would this not be any different than folks who are prohibited from speaking against abortion clinics right outside of them? As far as I know Christians are to be kept a certain distance away from the mills and are prohibited from speaking directly with the people going inside these abortion mills. This speech is highly restricted why can we not ensure that the speech of these “clowns” – sorry for the use of clowns, because clowns do not have hatred like those members of the Westboro Baptist Church-
Report comment to moderator
are restricted as well.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!