OT - Elizabeth Edwards Funeral Protest

Page 1 of 3  
As a life-long Kansan, I love my state, but there are times when I want to hide under a damned rock. For those who haven't heard the nutcase a**holes from the Topeka-based Westboro "church" plan to protest her funeral.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/controversial-church-protest-elizabeth-edawards-funeral/story?id 364430
No word regarding Patriot Guard intervention.
%$@#&*
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
tiredofspam <nospam.nospam.com> wrote in

Good idea.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Dec 10, 8:41 am, tiredofspam <nospam.nospam.com> wrote:

As a Christian myself I totally reject the strange and unsupprted beliefs and actions of this group. They do not represent in any way the belief of Christianity as I know it. This type of hate is exactly the reason for the teaching about loving your neighbor.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yabbut.... Elizabeth Edwards was expounding the virtues of a man she _knew_ was having an affair. The prospect of becoming First Lady of the USA was irresistible to her.
It is tragic that cancer strikes the way it does, it somehow doesn't turn her into an angel.... that, in itself, is not a free pass for complete zealot fuck-ups like Phelps and his hangers-on to disrupt a private affair... clowns like that are giving good-living christians the same bad name as those crazed muslims are tainting those who do NOT subscribe to insanity.
People need to learn to tear down the blinds that main stream media insists on draping before our eyes- Elizabeth Edwards was no better than that husband of hers.
<nomex>
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/10/2010 10:26 AM, RonB wrote:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/controversial-church-protest-elizabeth-edawards-funeral/story?id 364430
The irony is that if we truly wish to defend freedom, speech like that from these people must be protected.
However ... I fail to see how they get away with forcing people to listen to them by interfering in private events like funerals. A free society guarantees you the right to speak freely. It does not guarantee you the right to have listeners.
The simple solution to this is to back these people far enough away so that they cannot disrupt an entirely private event. They belong on public property where they can exercise the 1st Amendment rights so any squirrels or other nut collectors that wish to listen ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

across from the funeral home, church, streets going to either, etc. This is all public property. The key, which was accomplished at a few funerals for soldiers, is to have more people lined up on the same sidewalk as the Phelps clan, with HUGE signs and flags blocking theirs. I'm willing to bet if this was accomplished at all of their sites of protest, they would eventually diminish. We outnumber them by thousands. Surely we can overpower their existence with a greater display.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/10/2010 9:00 PM, SBH wrote:

across from the funeral home, church, streets going to either, etc. This is all public property. The key, which was accomplished at a few funerals for soldiers, is to have more people lined up on the same sidewalk as the Phelps clan, with HUGE signs and flags blocking theirs. I'm willing to bet if this was accomplished at all of their sites of protest, they would eventually diminish. We outnumber them by thousands. Surely we can overpower their existence with a greater display. But merely being on public property does not guarantee the right to do whatever you want. There are public nuisance ordinances, for example, that prevent you from disturbing the neighbors or running naked through the streets. These people should be subject to the same restrictions - they are interfering with people involved in a private matter.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message

The Phelps clan has made quite a bit of money suing towns that tried things like that. Phelps Sr. is a disbarred lawyer, and I think a couple of members of his genetic-bottleneck family are lawyers, they know how to work the system.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/10/2010 10:12 PM, DGDevin wrote:

like that. Phelps Sr. is a disbarred lawyer, and I think a couple of members of his genetic-bottleneck family are lawyers, they know how to work the system. Understood, but somewhere along the way, it would be nice for the government to actually defend *everyone's* civil liberties, not just the fringe lunatics.
I get - and support - their right to speak their piece. This is a cornerstone of a free society. I do not get why they are able to morph this into making everyone listen to their lunacy.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message

I agree. IMO their tactic is to generate publicity by doing something they know will cause anguish to the families of dead soldiers (and others). I do not think the law should protect speech which is designed to inflict needless suffering on innocent parties and then exploit the outrage over that loathsome practice. If it was up to me (and so far the courts have been curiously reluctant to seek my opinion on this or other matters) I'd bar such protests far enough from the gates of a cemetery so that the family can come and go without seeing these gibbering vermin.
One day some pilled-out trucker with a stack of alimony demands in his pocket is going to turn the wheel and flatten the Phelps clan during one of their roadside protests, and I for one won't shed any tears.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
[...]

Nor will I. And I doubt that it would be easy to find 12 men who would vote to convict him, either.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/10/2010 11:07 PM, DGDevin wrote:

know will cause anguish to the families of dead soldiers (and others). I do not think the law should protect speech which is designed to inflict needless suffering on innocent parties and then exploit the outrage over that loathsome practice. If it was up to me (and so far the courts have been curiously reluctant to seek my opinion on this or other matters) I'd bar such protests far enough from the gates of a cemetery so that the family can come and go without seeing these gibbering vermin.

is going to turn the wheel and flatten the Phelps clan during one of their roadside protests, and I for one won't shed any tears. Yabut ... violence isn't the right way to solve this problem. Freedom of one citizen is always bounded by the freedom of another. We have a spineless government (particularly of late) that refuses to grasp this notion. Phelps and his mob must be free to peddle their ideas - however malignant. But I cannot grasp why the various governmental bodies don't get that the funeral attendees also have co-equal rights. Then again, I sort of do get it ... for some 70 years, the government has anointed itself as being in charge of who is- and who is not worth of particular rights and privileges... and "equal" isn't part of the formula...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

The nutjobs' behaviour sounds a lot like the behaviour of brownshirt fascists to me.
They also sound a bit like terrorists.
I would ask the question, "Who benefits politically from their bad behaviour and what is that political beneficiarie's politics when you strip the facade back to frame and foundation?"
They are on a continuum. If government/law will not stop them, you have to ask *why* it will not stop them.
Follow the power.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I like this phrasing. It captures something I've known forever, but never been able to express so well. The closest is Oliver Wendell Holmes' "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."
Sidebar: I'd always attributed that to Will Rogers, but it seems the Internet has another opinion.
-- Doug
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message

IMO it would solve this particular problem quite nicely. It's not like the Phelps clan is a franchise operation with branches in every city.

Legislators climb over each other to pass laws stopping the Phelps clan from getting near military funerals, the problem isn't the legislative or executive branches, it is the judicial branch. The courts (usually correctly) lean towards protecting freedom of speech, but there are still limitations when a public need is more pressing than an individual one--IMO this should be one of them. But as the lawyers say, hard cases make bad law.

Because they don't see them as equal, they assume that hurt feelings are not as important as freedom of speech. In general I agree with that, but I do feel that this particular speech should not be protected outside the gates of a cemetery even if I would protect it a quarter of a mile away. We impose limitations on speech in order to serve compelling public needs, e.g. discouraging defamation or incitement to violence. I think a case could be made that the Phelps mutants have ample opportunity to express their views in places other than in front of grieving relations at a funeral, that their rights do not depend on protesting outside the cemetery gates. Some laws that have been passed require them to stay 1,000 feet away, but others impose a useless 150 foot requirement--I'd make it at least 1,500 feet. If they want to protest a few blocks away in front of some car wash, fine. Then the car wash owner can sue them for interfering with his business.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I will. The trucker will have to take the time to clean Phelps splatter from his truck and that could take awhile.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"SBH" wrote in message

The bank is going to repo his rig anyway, that's one of the reasons he's so pissed-off.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Freedom of the correct speech. Incorrect speech should be banned. OK......
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

have more complaints about gov intervention and slowly stripping our freedom away.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/11/2010 4:19 PM, SBH wrote:

needless suffering on innocent parties and then exploit the outrage over that loathsome practice. If it was up to me (and so far the courts have been curiously reluctant to seek my opinion on this or other matters) I'd bar such protests far enough from the gates of a cemetery so that the family can come and go without seeing these gibbering vermin.

have more complaints about gov intervention and slowly stripping our freedom away. Even as we speak, one corner of the political spectrum wants to use FCC oversight to silence the other. Both corners are obnoxious, but both ought to be free to peddle their ideas. Putting government in charge of who get's to say what is deadly ... there are no exceptions.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.