| Welcome to Philosophyabsurdity. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're probably looking for old friends, or old enemies. Don't panic! They still exist. Sure, they've forgotten about you. It's just the internet. But with passion, intellect and an enormous penis you can force your way back into their affections or the sex offenders register. So type a message. Expect a witty response. It's all for you... you just might have to wait 2 or 3 years. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Shirley Phelps-Roper | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 25 2007, 02:10 PM (1,524 Views) | |
| Lea | Sep 27 2007, 10:26 AM Post #21 |
|
Unregistered
|
That's okay, Ive already put a down payment on a flat overlooking the "Lake of eternal damnation", which is much better then the "Lake of tortured souls". We'll catch up for a spit roast. mmmh.. tortured souls |
|
|
| Evil_Henry | Sep 27 2007, 10:54 AM Post #22 |
![]()
In Vino Veritas
|
Why did you choose this particular contradiction to respond to? |
![]() |
|
| Lea | Sep 27 2007, 11:07 AM Post #23 |
|
Unregistered
|
The bible is a walking contradiction.. The difference is that "normal" (alright relatively normal) people see the bible for what it is.. a book of tales with a morality lesson at the end. Then there are those that, well like this particular people, who take the bible not only literally, but are very selective in what they take on board and then twist it o suit their cause. I'ts never used to fairness, and acceptance or tolerance. I'ts always a tool for hate. God like people don't use the term "fag". and that's all i have to say about that. |
|
|
| Evil_Henry | Sep 27 2007, 11:10 AM Post #24 |
![]()
In Vino Veritas
|
I don't know if that's true, Lea - Ergo is a Christian and he would probably call someone a fag. I mean, he writes on his balls so I don't think he has any problems in calling people fags. |
![]() |
|
| Evil_Henry | Sep 27 2007, 11:11 AM Post #25 |
![]()
In Vino Veritas
|
I like that, walking bibles are definitely a contradiction. |
![]() |
|
| Xx_SwordWords_xX | Sep 27 2007, 11:29 AM Post #26 |
![]()
Satan Valid
|
Christian faggots. How dare they judge my secondlifeposeballing :angry: |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| Mock | Sep 27 2007, 02:50 PM Post #27 |
![]() ![]()
|
lol@Ergo espousing Christianity. Ardra should be a Christian though, it would be perfect. |
![]() |
|
| ConfusedMonkey | Nov 1 2007, 11:37 AM Post #28 |
|
Satan Valid
|
Huge fine for anti-gay US church The church's pickets of military funerals have outraged Americans A church whose members cheered a soldier's death as "punishment" for US tolerance of homosexuality has been told to pay $10.9m (£5.2m) in damages. The Westboro Baptist Church was taken to court by the father of Lance Cpl Matthew Snyder, a marine who died serving in Iraq in March 2006. The church cited its constitutional right to free speech in its defence. But Albert Snyder's lawyer urged the jury to ensure the damages were high enough to stop the church campaigning. Members of the church - based in Topeka, Kansas - have denounced homosexuality for years, initially targeting the funerals of Aids victims. But they later extended their pickets to the funerals of soldiers, who they say are being punished by God because of the US' tolerance of homosexuality. Last year they caused outrage when they attended the funeral of Matthew Snyder with signs reading "Thank God for dead soldiers" and "You're going to hell". On Wednesday, the jury ordered the church and three of its leaders to pay $2.9m in compensatory damages, and an additional $8m for invasion of privacy and for causing emotional distress. Albert Snyder's attorney, Craig Trebilcock, had urged jurors to agree an amount "that says 'Don't do this' in Maryland again. Do not bring your circus of hate to Maryland again". Defence attorney Jonathan Katz's argument that the $2.9m in compensatory damages already far exceeded the defendants' net worth and would be enough to "bankrupt them and financially destroy them" was ignored. The church, which is unaffiliated with any major denomination, is headed by Fred Phelps. Most of its 70-odd members belong to his extended family. Appeal Albert Snyder sobbed when he heard the verdict. "I hope it's enough to deter them from doing this to other families. It was not about the money. It was about getting them to stop," he said, according to Reuters news agency. Members of the church, however, reportedly greeted the verdict with tight-lipped smiles. "It will take the 4th Circuit of Appeals a few minutes to reverse this silly thing," said Rev Phelps. Daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper - co-defendant along with another daughter, Rebecca Phelps-Davis - called the verdict a blow against free speech and vowed to continue picketing military funerals. Source |
| There are no promises or assurances in any shape or form contained in the above post. Do not trust this Monkey. | |
![]() |
|
| Evil_Henry | Nov 1 2007, 11:50 AM Post #29 |
![]()
In Vino Veritas
|
I can't see that standing - it's an absurd fine. |
![]() |
|
| ThePlague | Nov 1 2007, 12:11 PM Post #30 |
|
Unregistered
|
It's not only an absurd fine, it strikes at the heart of free speech. They're religious nutcases, of course, but they have every right to voice their opinions. Hopefully, it will be overturned. |
|
|
| Evil_Henry | Nov 1 2007, 12:21 PM Post #31 |
![]()
In Vino Veritas
|
As much as I dislike the group, it's a sledgehammer approach and fundamentally wrong. Compensation and invasion of privacy damages? It might make more sense if there was an actual crime to answer for. |
![]() |
|
| ThePlague | Nov 1 2007, 12:32 PM Post #32 |
|
Unregistered
|
Whether the family likes it or not, the funeral of a soldier is a political event. The usual "protecting our freedoms" nonsense that gets spewed at such events has many opposing answers. He was an agent of the government, doing a job that many people think is wrong for a variety of reasons. This group wants to express its idiotic opinion, and they have every right to do so. That it hurts the feelings of the family is just too damn bad. |
|
|
| ErgonomicLogic | Nov 1 2007, 04:37 PM Post #33 |
|
Ninja Valid
|
It will probably be upheld. Unless they can show the ordinance is a content based regulation. Many states passed laws prohibiting demonstrations of any kind at funerals, any funeral. Even public forums can suffer time, place, and manner restrictions. Funerals are not considered a traditional public forum, so they can be even further regulated. Airports were declared a non-public forum by the Supreme Court a few years ago, so I doubt a funeral will get declared such. The damage award may be reduced as excessive however, but the basic principle of any underlying statute will likely be upheld. |
![]() |
|
| Evil_Henry | Nov 1 2007, 04:43 PM Post #34 |
![]()
In Vino Veritas
|
They're usually pretty knowledgeable when it comes to what they can and can't get away with... seems very unlikely they'd deliberately contravene a law that states public protest at a funeral is illegal. They've managed to stay within the law so far, the leader and his daughter are both lawyers after all. |
![]() |
|
| ErgonomicLogic | Nov 1 2007, 04:44 PM Post #35 |
|
Ninja Valid
|
And, "A solider's funeral is a political event" is meaningless. So is a polling place on voting day, but there are strict laws forbidding political activism of any kind within so many feet of the building. The importance of the event, its primary purpose sometimes outweighs any collateral objectives. The funeral serves role in the psychological and social healing process for family and friends of the deceased. Protestors of any kind, regardless of content, can severely impede the grieving process. I know it's hard for someone without emotions, or real experience in the political process to understand that funerals have a purpose other than shaking hands and driving a procession of cars for everyone to see. |
![]() |
|
| ErgonomicLogic | Nov 1 2007, 04:46 PM Post #36 |
|
Ninja Valid
|
And almost all Constitutional challenges start by breaking a law. Sometimes it is done intentionally just to raise an issue. The famous Griswold case that paved the way for Roe v. Wade started when a couple who disagreed with a law banning contraception found a sympathetic prosecutor who organized a scenario where the police saw their contraceptive devices in their home and brought charges against them. |
![]() |
|
| ThePlague | Nov 1 2007, 05:53 PM Post #37 |
|
Unregistered
|
A court deciding that some other role of a given function outweighs its political nature is irrelevant. An event is political whenever political ideas are expressed, such as at a soldier's funeral where the eulogy may praise (or condemn) the soldier's participation in a war, or express a pro- (or anti-) government sentiment. While protecting the feelings of the family is a laudable goal, it is not a compelling reason to stifle the free speech of others to offer to the public another view. The example of a polling place is disingenuous, as a polling place is performing a state function akin to a DMV. The smooth operation of this event is in the state's interest, and hence the prohibitions against political proselytizing in the establishment itself. A funeral does not serve a comparable function. Or rather, it shouldn't. From the source material I've read, it's not like they've barged into the funeral itself, rather picketed outside. This is indicated both by the BBC Article and the Wikipedia writeup. This is clearly an expression of a political viewpoint, done outside the event itself as a protest. Now, according to this at the National Review, it's quite possible that Phelps did indeed break a law, and that law may very well be constitutional. However, it's absurd to award any damages to the family for the expression of political ideas with which they disagree. If people were outside the funeral home to show their support, this would equally run afoul of the prohibition on demonstrations, but I rather doubt this is enforced very vigorously. Consequently, the application of the law is not content-neutral. |
|
|
| ThePlague | Nov 1 2007, 07:44 PM Post #38 |
|
Unregistered
|
Well, a little digging brought up an interesting tidbit:
There's no way in the world this should stand. I thought they might have been under 100', or maybe 300', which are usually two of the magical numbers for distance bans. But a thousand feet? That might as well be a thousand miles, in which case it is a direct violation of political speech through selective punitive damages. That doesn't mean it won't hold up on appeal, of course. There's quite a bit of government and in particular military worship going on right now. It essentially means that one can not make a political statement concerning a dead soldier, unless of course it's positive and approved by the family. |
|
|
| RevWolf | Nov 1 2007, 08:14 PM Post #39 |
![]()
MacGyver of Sex
|
saying your kid died because God is angry with America because of fag sex is political speech? |
![]() |
|
| ThePlague | Nov 1 2007, 08:15 PM Post #40 |
|
Unregistered
|
Yes, it is. |
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." Learn More · Sign-up for Free |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General · Next Topic » |












8:19 AM Jul 11