The Kansas Legislature will take another run at the Phelps clan this session. State Rep. Raj Goyle, D-Wichita, has filed a bill to restrict funeral protests. Meanwhile, Rep. Joe Patton, R-Topeka, is trying a different approach. Instead of blocking the protests, he wants to use tort law to allow people to sue the Phelpses for intentional infliction of emotional distress. "This still allows free speech but if you damage someone, you will be held responsible in the court of law," he told the Topeka Capital-Journal.
"Blah, blah, blah," church spokeswoman Shirley Phelps-Roper responded. "A violation of First Amendment rights by any other name is still a violation of First Amendment rights."
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
57 Comments
I think the Phelps are about to learn that the 1st ammendment puts limits on the government. Somebody should have sued them long ago. I can’t believe a public-interest law firm didn’t pick this ball up years ago.
No one gave a damn when they just bothered the queers, PM.
Now that they’ve broadened their hatred broadcasting area, others are starting too notice.’
But when it was just us… eh… not so much.
It’s sad though, if they are successful against the Phelps how long until the government uses their power against any group they don’t like?
The government has a weak case. Yes, having a different opinion can cause emotional distress. Phelps rants against everyone cause emotional distress, so do other preacher’s sermons, so do presentations about global warming, AIDS, deforestation, tax cuts, Paris Hilton music, stock reports, and practically every issue. Government success could easily turn America into a bunch of whiners with attorneys ready to sue for every comment.
This is nothing more than a waste of taxpayer money and an infringement on everyone’s civil liberties.
I am all for post- birth abortion procedures being performed on selected individuals; the entire Phelps clan being the first on the list.
Doug, I guess it’s okay if they camp out in front of your house then?It is a free country.Shit, you could barbecue and have a few beers with the ‘freedom crew’.
Can the state do anything about the Phelpses?Maybe they might.I am not sure of all of what the Kansas state laws say about when a church is officially a church but I do know that to establish a church there has to be a building structure with an address, utilities, Church Charter, Secretary, Treasurer and a filing of some (optional) tax forms to the I.R.S. in order to be legally a church recognize by the state.In order to be a Minister you have to be ordained by a Church and have the Ministers Credentials with the state seal and the President’s signature on it, then as far as you and the state is concerned, you are a legal ordained minister.As far as for all the other churches in this nation, I wonder why the other churches are not getting together and getting down on the Phelps for giving a black eye to the church community.
I’d prefer the Phelps protesting in front of my house than for Americans to lose their First Amendment freedoms.
Doug, we want you to speak your mind. It’s never anything vile like these freaks.
We could care less about their rights!
You have a good idea Wiseman about going after their tax exemption. The state could pass civil rights legislation tying a church’s tax exemption to their exempt status. Any church that willfully discriminates against homosexuals loses that exemption. The Phelps would have to decide what they like more, a tax break or gays.
If they are hurt financially then that means fewer protest trips they can afford while still maintaining their right to protest.
Sorry Tracy, I disagree. It’s not for the government to decide that only speech that doesn’t offend is Constitutionally protected. Should we have a mass arrest of stand up comedians because their humor is deemed offensive? Or perhaps we should ban clothing that doesn’t cover a woman’s face and hair because that’s offensive. How far do you want to go? George Carlin had to go to the Supreme Court to defend the use of certain words because people found them offensive.
Freedom of speech means the right to offend people, not say what government censors allow us to say.
Doug, yada yada.I know all this.Just when it comes to these dispicable creatures, I could care less.
Yeah, I know, they’re coming for me next blah, blah.I say BULLSHIT.Nobody is going to get up in arms and change laws over anything I say. It’s just not that hateful.
When it comes to fucked up fred and crew, I’m as stupid as Bush.IF YOU AIN’T AGAINST HIM,YOU’RE WITH HIM.
Oh, and I hope I didn’t offend you.That’s the difference.They hope and pray that they inspire hatred.You can tell me I’m wrong all day long, but I prefer to be wrong in this case.
So Tracy you’ve proven that you have no problem with hypocrisy. Some people should have more rights than others. Congrats, you have joined the George Bush way of thinking.
Doug, congradulations.You are supporting freds hypocrisy.To fred, the bible is the ultimate in free speech.Yet he does not live by his own words.Let’s look at what I mean, shall we?And when I’m done, forget the fucking freedom lecture.
Here are some verses which come directly from the Bible that even fundamentalists do not take literally for today, proving that they selectively pick and choose verses out of context which justify their pre-existing prejudice against gay and lesbian people. Take a look for yourself…
“Women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive, as the law also says.” (1 Corinthians 14:34)This verse says that women can’t speak in church. Period. It is completely ignored today. Applying this verse to the modern day church would be ancient, absurd and nonsensical.When it comes to the verses about homosexuality, however, fundamentalists suddenly insist that they must be interpreted literally, word for word!When it comes to this verse, however, they admit the facts. They acknowledge that it was only meant for that day. The truth is that the Apostle Paul wrote this verse because, during his time, women and men sat on opposite sides of the church aisle. Women would yell questions across the aisle to their husbands, causing a disruption of the service.It would be all too easy for a fundamentalist who disliked women to use this verse to exclude women from participating in the service, just as fundamentalists who dislike gay people currently misuse those seemingly anti-gay scriptures to exclude people who are gay.Realizing that a particular scripture was only relevant for its time (and should not be applied literally to our modern day) is an interpretational option that is conveniently ignored when it comes to the verses which discuss homosexuality.
“Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her as a covering.” (1 Corinthians 11:13-15)Upon visiting any fundamentalist church, you will discover that more than a few women have short haircuts. This verse, however, indicates that women should have long hair, as their “head must be covered.”It has a familiar ring to it, doesn’t it? Arab fundamentalists require women to put a veil over their heads and punish them if they do not. The fact of the matter is that the length of your hair has nothing to do with your spiritual condition.
“If any man takes a wife, and goes in on her, and detests her, and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings a bad name on her, and says, ‘I took this woman, and when I came to her I found she was not a virgin…” (Deuteronomy 22:13,14)”But if … evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones…” (Deuteronomy 22:20,21)If a man discovers that a woman is not a virgin on her wedding night, all the men in town can murder her by flinging stones at her young female body as she screams in pain.
Is this the word of God? Hardly.
The command to stone to death a young girl who is not proven to be a virgin on her wedding night is simply an ugly man-made rule of murder that found its way into the Biblical text.
WHY are fundamentalists so afraid to admit the obvious, that such verses like the one listed above are simply not the Word of God?
How mature is one’s faith if one cannot even admit that a verse which commands that young girls be stoned to death isn’t the Word of God?Here are the facts . . .The belief in Biblical times was that if a woman was indeed a virgin, she would bleed on her wedding night because her first sexual intercourse would result in the breaking of the hymen, the thin tissue that covers the vagina. This blood was considered the “evidence” of her virginity that the scripture speaks of.Medical science has since discovered that the hymen is often already broken in many young girls because of their participation in athletic sports and things like horseback riding. Quite tragically, this indicates that many girls who actually were virgins on their wedding night were nonetheless stoned to death because they were ignorant of this scientific fact. Little did many young girls in Biblical times know that their wedding nights would end in their own murder.
“If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched.” (Mark 9:43)
While fundamentalists insist (due to their pre-existing bigotry) that all seemingly anti-gay scriptures be taken literally, without exception, they admit that the above verse was not meant to be taken literally even though the words above were spoken by Jesus Himself.
This proves that fundamentalists are willing to say that certain scriptures weren’t meant to be believed literally, even those which contain the actual words of Jesus Christ!
“One of illegitimate birth shall not enter the congregation of the Lord.” (Deuteronomy 23:2)If you were born to an unwed mother, the Bible says that you shouldn’t be allowed in church. Do “Bible-believing” fundamentalists follow this rule? Nope.They acknowledge that this verse was meant for a different time.
Yes, even fundamentalists acknowledge that certain scriptures were only meant to be applied to the particular time and place in which they were written.
When it comes to those scripture verses which seem to speak against homosexuality, however, they suddenly and indignantly demand that every word be followed to the letter and applied to our modern day!The idea of refusing membership in the church to a child born to an unwed mother is seen as being unreasonable today, even though the scripture instructs it.The idea of quoting scripture to abuse people who are gay and lesbian is just as unreasonable and antiquated.
“Slaves, obey your human masters with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ.” (Ephesians 6:5)”Slaves, obey your human masters in everything; don’t work only while being watched, in order to please men, but work wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord.” (Colossians 3:22)”Slaves are to be submissive to their masters in everything, and to be well-pleasing, not talking back .” (Titus 2:9)”Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel. ” (1 Peter 2:18)
Slaves should obey their masters?
Hardly. Slavery was one of the most offensive institutions to ever befall humanity. Sadly, the scriptures condoned it, and, as you can see from the above verses, demanded that slaves obey their masters…even cruel ones.Are those verses the “Word of God?”Of course not.They are merely reflective of cultural biases which found their way into the Biblical text.
“So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avengeditself its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stoppedin the middle of the sky and delayed going down for about a full day.”(Joshua 10:13 NIV)The great astronomer Galileo was jailed by religious authorities when he asserted that the Earth revolved around the sun, and not the other way around, as the above verse suggests. If the Bible were the “inerrant, literal Word of God,” as people like Jerry Falwell claim, surely God would have known that it was the Earth, and not the sun which had stopped.In February of 1616, religious authorities asked a commission of theologians, known as the Qualifiers, about Galileo’s claim that the Sun is at the center of the planets’ motions and does not move, and that the Earth is not at the center and does move.On February 24, 1616, the Qualifiers delivered their unanimous report: the idea that the Sun is stationary is “foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts many places the sense of Holy Scripture…”.
ConclusionWhen it comes to the scriptural verses which seem to be against homosexuality, fundamentalists boldly declare their belief in the “infallible, inerrant Word of God”, demanding that every single word be taken literally, without exception.But when it comes to the awkward verses listed above, they become much less sure of themselves. So much less sure, in fact, that they don’t follow what their own Bible says.”Jesus said to him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”(Matthew 22:37-40
I don’t see fat freddy loving his neighbor as himself.Hypocrit.
The damned television networks, hollyweird and mtv are intentionally inflicting emotional distress upon Ian by depciting evil, vile race mixing! Somebody get Ian an ambulance chaser, he’s gonna sue!
viva la Raza Blanco!!
If you’re distressed you qualify for the late term abortion.Congrads.
And I say-Good day to you sir!
I can promise you that there are few people I loathe the way that I do the Phelpes, and that was BEFORE they started protesting funerals. But I’m with Doug here and I am concerned that squelching freedom of speech for them is squelching it for everyone.
I’m torn though, because I know there are already restrictions on where one can protest (say, like the president) now.
Tracy I don’t see your point. I’m not defending Fred’s views, I’m just defending his right to express them.
WHY, WHY, WHY do we continue to pay any attention to these people? Turn off the TV cameras, quit reporting when they show up. Take away what they want the most: publicity and a forum so spout the most vile hate imaginable.
It appears, instead, that the “ethical” media is more interested in selling papers and stirring controversy than doing the right thing. Imagine that.
Some day, some one will pop a “cap” in one of those people. It can not be too soon. vengeance is mine saith R.
Tracy, I get tired of the Phelps’ too. They are not really Christians since they don’t follow the teachings of Jesus.
But you seem to use a lot of threads to copy and paste stuff that tries to impune Christianity itself. Mostly Old Testament stuff. Everyone knows the Phelps’ don’t practice Christian love etc.. so I’m not sure what you motive is this time, other than to take another shot.
I notice that you also post a lot of new age stuff, which all sounds good but is the wisdom of man and not that of God; like you will find in scripture.
It seems to me that you are searching, as we all are to some extent. Sure, there are verses that are hard to understand, but I don’t see what you are trying to accomplish.
You know when ever the Phelps get under my skin. I go to your tube and watch some of the videos there. Fred Jr. being told he has a nice butt, A Sheriff hitting Mrs. Phelps back after she hits him with her sign, them running for their life to get back in the van. Only to have the window smashed as they drive away.
There is the law and then there is justice. Some times there are one in the same and some times there are a thousand miles apart.
What everyone seems not to realize is that this whole Phelps thing is all about Phred’s megalomania. Anything he can do to get attention, he will. I doubt if he even believes the rot he puts out (or his deluded family members put out).
It’s all about “LOOK AT ME!”
I think the ACLU is on the side of Phelps.
He’s an absolute embarrasment to the Democrat Party, that’s for sure. I wonder if he will run for the Democrat ticket for Governor again?
Joe, does oxegen reach in your spider hole or do you just hold your breath for long periods of time?
What are you talking about WSClark? Do you have anything else to do but to be a hater?
What I said is the truth. Care to have anything substantive to say? Or are you going to be a good little troll and keep on doing nothing but whiney name calling.
Unless you are defending the Phelps. I could be wrong. If your a member of the Westboro Baptist Church, then I can see why you reacted the way you do. You hate fags right?
He has the right to hold signs while standing on the sidewald in front of a church or funeral. These attempts to infringe on his rights will fail, as they should.
The Phelps- typical Republican nutcases they are- have the right to free speech the same as anybody else. Free speech doesn’t mean just “popular” speech. It means unpopular speech too. As long as they are on public right of way, they have the right to picket whereever they want.
What do you mean “they aren’t really Christians”? Unfortunately they are far too typical of the direction Christianity has taken with nutcases like Pat Roberts, John Hagee and Rev. Arthur Allen Jr. Christianity has become as much a hate religion as radical Islam is. And that is really too bad because Jesus himself would not really dig what his movement is about these days.
Actually Kev. The Phelps are Democrats.
Fred is really a lot like Ian. If everyone would just not respond and the media would not talk about him he might go away. He loves the attention. I think I read somewhere that he has other kids that have cut all ties with him. Can you imagine having his as your parent?
No dem claims the Phelps’. But I do think he should be associated with the religious right (wrong).
FROM A MEMBER OF THE PATRIOT GUARD: ALL I SEEN WERE CHILDREN STANDING IN THE COLD, CARRYING COOKIE CUTTER SIGNS THAT HAD NO BEARING ON ANYTHING OTHER THAN TO ILLICIT A NEGITIVE RESPONSE FOR THE BEHOLDER. IN ACTUALITY I FELT SORRY FOR THE CHILDREN THAT WERE FORCED TO STAND OUT IN THE COLD BY THE OBIVIOUSLY MENTALLY CHALLENGED LEADERSHIP OF THE PHELPH’S GROUP. I WAS PROUD TO STAND GUARD AT THE SERVICES OF THESE FALLEN SOLDIERS THAT GAVE THIER LIVES TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS OF ALL OF US AND INCULDING THE BRAIN DEAD LEADERSHIP OF THE PHELPH’S GROUP AND POOR EXPLOITED CHILDREN FORCED TO STAND AND HOLD THOSE OBIVIOUSLY UNIMAGINATIVE SIGNS. GOD BLESS THE AMERICAN SOLDIER BECAUSE ONLY IN THE U.S.A. WOULD THESE PEOPLE NOT BE SHOT FOR SUCH A DISPLAY OF DISRESPECT TO OUR HEROS!!!!!!!
What a sad group of people. They have no clue that they are lost.”Ills comprene pennant pas”.
1st. Kathy please turn off your Capslock..thanks.
2nd. Dont give anyone the civil OK to sue because you dont like what they say. You will have every offended twit, (mainly Islamist) etc suing you because you tell the truth and they wont like it. You will have CAIR et al on your doorstep threatening you.
I try to tell my Christian buddies about trying to get prayer in school etc. They seem to be under the delusion that is will be the prayer THEY WANT.
But if one prayer gets in you will have to allow some that you may not like so well. And take a guess as to who, what that will be. But the media and local paper would likely back it as long as it was not Christian and was Islamic. All under the guise that is is “their culture” and you should be happy, blah, blah, etc.Anyway that is what the media says when women get beaten, mutilated etc…its their culture, as an excuse.
In England there are now several people in jail for several years because the badmouthed the local Islamic terror support groups. So leave the suit stuff for speech alone lest it be turned on you.
That way we can continue to be just as rude as possible and enjoy it. As we Yanks are apt to be.
Anything you can do to piss off a Phelpian, a Frenchman or an Islamist is good.
Doug, outie…My point is:This is NOT about free speech.This IS about singling out groups of people to harrass.
The bible quotes are an illustration of fat freddy’s disingenous bullshit.He uses the bible as fact and history when it’s convenient enough to support his hate speech.He’ll tell you it’s the word of God from the hand of God, and the ultimate truth. My post proves that that is total BS, because he picks and chooses what he wants to accept as true. Therefore, he is discriminating against others, and under false pretense to boot.
I forgot who I’m talking about.Let me rephrase that.He’s a fat fucking liar, who’s only purpose in life is to harrass people.He can say and write whatever he wants, but we all have the right to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, wich he is attempting to disrupt by his up-close and personal HARRASMENT!Harrasment should not be legal, parading as free speech!Got the point?I’m no legal beagle, maybe someone else knows about harrasment laws.We can outlaw telemarketers (by way of the no-call list),But we MUST put up with this weirdo picketing at our soldiers funerals?Sheeeeeesh.And yes I believe in free speech.The ridiculous members of his cult are free to come right here and rebuttal anything I say.They can post their BS all day long. Fine with me.
BTW, outie.My post is meant to negate the notion that everything in the bible is god’s word.It’s obvious from my examples that this is not true.Also there’s nothing wrong with the new age stuff, it’s all pro-love and pro-god, not anti-christian.Can you say that the stuff I posted is NOT the word of God?Of course not.The very nature of God prevents us from knowing.
A big downturn for society was when everyone became panseys. It used to be that “fighting words” were just that, FIGHTING WORDS! You can say it all ya want, but be prepared to back them up fist to cuffs.
Nowdays, YOU end up the one in jail if you cream someone in the nose for protesting your son or daughters funeral!
WE ARE ALL GOING TO HELL QUICKLY, IN A HANDBASKET!
Fighting words have been defined by the Supreme Court as words said in a face to face context directly to an individual. The funeral protests do not fit into this. They are only carrying signs on public property. If it offends you, turn away.
The Phelps “nest” lends credence to the notion that mental illness can be genetically based and inheritable, as in contrast to being merely societal in nature!
RON, they are confronting people face to face and you know it.It’s harrassment, period.
Common sense tells us that this is unacceptable behavior.Just because you want to defend this creep doesn’t make it acceptable.
What they do is not freedom.It’s an unnacceptable assualt on freedom, justice and liberty.
There is a difference between harassment and free speech. Let him stand on his soapbox in a park and spew all the venom he wants, but the respect for the rights of grieving families should be upheld before any “right” Fred has. He can say whatever he wants, just not at someone’s funeral. How is that denying him his right to free speech? His rights end where another’s right begins.
Q: what is hate speech?
A: It is any speech that jews/leftists/minorities HATE to hear!
Viva La Raza Blanco!!
Santiago, why is it now the “real” Ian Santiago?
Is there another Ian Santiago that we don’t know about?
God forbid….
Clarkie,
I added “the real” to my nic because you questioned my identity in that thread regarding shrub’s speech.You said that the post didn’t seem like my usual fare. I responded to you in that thread so please respond, thanks.
Viva la Raza Blanco!!
Well, Ian, I read back through and other than the Zionist statement, I thought we had answered all the questions. If you have another question, feel free.
As for Israel, etc., I am not a big supporter of Israel, especially the government over the last ten years or so. I feel that the only solution to the conflict is to have a separate and equal Palestian homeland.
I agree – for markedly different reasons – that much of our Middle East foreign policy is based on the presumption that what is good for Israel is good for the United States.
I may be partially Jewish, but I am one hundred percent American.
Thank you Mary.You NAILED it.Right to the point.
I think most of us are in agreement that Phelps and his clan are pretty vile examples of humanity, and a misuse of religion. The problem is that we want him to shut up!Any legislation to penalize Phelps for his views establishes a legal precedent that could just as easily be used against anyone else whose views offend those in power. We tried to supress the communist party for decades, only to find they were ridiculously small. We did the same with labor unions, the civil rights movement and the anti-war activists of the ’60’s. We tried to shut them up.One of the main things we should notice about Phelps is that he has attracted no followers. He has to depend on his progeny for demonstrators. In the mean time, his vile crusade has convinced quite a few people who would normally stay on the sidelines to actively oppose his views. He has actually done more for the gay rights movement than all of San Francisco!You want him to shut up? The only legitimate way to shut him up is in your power! Don’t listen to him! Inform your media that you are no longer interested in seeing his activities reported. Let him die quietly forgotten.
Jed, didn’t you read what was above?We don’t necessarily want him to shut up, I mean, even dung beatles serve a purpose. And as you’ve pointed out, he’s actually mobilized thousands of people in defense of gays. I could care less if he speaks freely. It just shouldn’t be at funerals and other places where it is clearly intended to harrass and cause mental anguish to people who don’t want to hear or see his free speech.It’s clear that he has freely gotten his message out to all corners of the country.Nobody has censored it.I’ve read and heard his BS,forcing me to hear it again is just harrassment.
Tracy,I realize that if we’d been created by a truly merciful god, we’d all have earlids. What we’ve developed instead has been a remarkable capacity to ignore irritating assholes.Rather than hang on Phelps’ continual outrageousness with every breath, simply tune him out! We can’t stop him from appearing wherever he pleases, but we don’t have to acknowledge his presence, read his signs or lend any credence to his utterances by reporting them. The only way that jackass exists is because we allow him to.
Still Phelps has the right to free speech and there is no way that the courts are going to uphold any law that allows you to sue him for “emotional distress”. In fact the Supreme Court pretty much canned that with the Flynt vs Falwell and the Skokie (Nazi march) decisions. The right to free speech is fundamental and trumps over the “right” not to be offended or have your feelings hurt. And that is as it should be. If you don’t like what Phelps says either ignore him or join the Patriot Guard and counter picket him.
Actually I think this is more of a money thing with the Phelps clan. Several of them are lawyers themselves and everytime somebody tries to deny them their rights, they sue and recover much money in legal expenses. As attorneys, they don’t have to be awarded “damages” to get rich. The need only win and the other side has to pay the attorney fees which of course go to them since they are the attorneys. If they pass this law and Phelps sues to overturn it- which he will- and he wins- which he will also- he gets a nice payday courtesy of the Kansas taxpayers.
The Phelpes are still protesting funerals? I haven’t read anything about a protest in several months. Maybe that’s the best way to fight them–ignore them. They’d really hate that.
The truth is, the government has a right to limit assembly. They could require the Phelps to pull permits for their “assemblies”. This would then allow the funeral members time to shift when the funeral occurred. The Phelp’s definitely have a right to their opinion, but they may not violate the rights of others for their own rights.
Greg, the media will never ignore the Phelps, they’re too good for business. There’s nothing wrong with passing a law to keep them from harassing people when they’re most vulnerable. I’m surprised no one has shot Fred or someone else in his crazy clan yet.