[jbock13]

First of all, I tried to search and I did not see a thread for this topic. If there was I'm sincerely sorry for duplicating because I'm sure this has been talked about much on here.

But regardless, was anyone outraged about the liberty counsel's decision to even get involved in the lawsuit concerning westboro and the maine soldier, let alone support them? I for one do not wish in anyway to be affliated with a university who (legally supported) anything the westboro baptist church does. Secondly, no entity has a right to infringe on a private funeral without the consent of the organizers.

I realize this happened a long time ago, but I'm tired of explaining to people when they bring this up, and they think I'm for it (through no fault of their own). It still makes me sick to my stomach that anyone in this university would support something like this. Don't get me wrong, I still love liberty and I always will. But clearly, there's some things that need to be changed. Let us not compromise the truth we believe in, but yet let's show others the truth with love.

[El Scorcho]

Secondly, no entity has a right to infringe on a private funeral without the consent of the organizers.

That's not true.

It may not be tasteful, desirable, kind, loving or anything like what Christ would do, but on that point you're wrong. It's legal and it should be. That's the thing about the first amendment. It means everyone gets a say. Even the distasteful. If we want to ensure that everyone has a say, then that means everyone. Once we start to pick and choose we have abandoned the first amendment and that is not a liberty I'm willing to compromise on.

It's unfortunate that folks like those who operate under the banner of Westboro Baptist Church choose to abuse it, but that's how it is.

Liberty Counsel's decision to get involved is probably solid legally, but it's about as horrible as PR can get. I mean, the Phelps family is mainly comprised of lawyers. I don't see why they'd need the help.

[ATrain]

As much as I hate it, they do have the right. Just like I would have the right to carry a sign on a public sidewalk in front of their "church," (with a permit if required by the jurisdiction it's in) that says "I'm gay and God loves me as much as He loves you." We do not want to get to a point in our country where we start outlawing "hate speech."

I don't understand Liberty Counsel's involvement though, Mr. Phelps has already made tons of cash proving it's within his 1st amendment rights to say whatever he wants whenever he wants.

[jbock13]

Let's say you come to my house and picket signs saying "I don't like eggs". And let's assume I don't like that. What would happen? The police would probably warn you next time you came, uninvited by me, you would be arrested for tresspassing. You see, in my opinion, private property also includes the freedom of association. If my funeral is open to the public, then anyone is welcome to come, including Westboro (although I certainly wouldn't protect their lives in anyway). However, there is no right to a freedom of speech at a PRIVATE funeral. I emphasize private, because the organizer has chosen by his "freedom of association" who will be there himself.

Although I do disagree with some of you I suppose, I am glad to hear that I am not alone in my opinion that the counsel should not have gotten involved in the first place. With the City Counsel tape recording incident, and this, I'm not why we wanted to associate ourselves in anyway with these hateful bigots. Some choices the counsel makes really adds to the fire of those of us who already hate us. Some people will always hate us for what we stand for, but some are just sincerely misinformed. Frankly ever since Jerry Sr.'s death, I've found a lot of things said by the counsel that I have had to distance myself from.

I believe if Jerry Sr. were still around on earth, he would have been appalled at this.

But, looking at it simplistically, if the Liberty Counsel and the ACLU agree on a subject, that's the problem right there

[jbock13]

The thing is that they don't actually attend funerals. They attend nearby and protest at the closest allowed distance. They aren't trespassing on private property or a private event.

Well in this case then I would agree with you.

[ToTheLeft]

They know the rules, and what they are allowed to do, and not allowed to do, and they get as close as they can without violating anything.

Which goes back to Phelps understanding the law and having a team full of people who know the law...

and you wonder why Counsel got involved, since they don't really need the help.

But yeah, there's been some less than desirable things to come from Counsel lately. Oh well. I don't want to bring up anything else because I'll be on the end of the see-saw that's way up in the air and shaking like crazy in any debate about law and politics and Christianity.

[Hold My Own]

I hope JLFjr can share his opinion on the LC and Westboro connection. It's hard for me to find anything positive to say about Westboro after Dr. Falwell's funeral. I guess you could say I have a bitter root towards them, BUT I'm aware of the root and dont mind it to much

[jack_sparrow81]

http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14100&PRID=955.

Check the link above. They denounce the groups actions. This has to deal with the first admendment. It messed up what their doing, but the first admendment is at risk here

[jbock13]

There's an argument to the first amendment IF they protest on public property and they receive the proper permit. I know when they came to west virginia after the mine collapse they did not do such a thing, protested on private property and barely escaped with their lives.

As I've said before, no matter what the excuse the counsel gives, they should have never gotten in this. Period.

[ALUmnus]

As I've said before, no matter what the excuse the counsel gives, they should have never gotten in this. Period.

I don't think that's true. Accurate or not (mostly not), Westboro operates under the guise of a church. I think it falls completely within Liberty Counsel's bounds to be supporting a church's right to free speech. It would be hypocritical for them not to. Remember, this is about the law and the Constitution, not about your feelings.

[jbock13]

As I've said before, no matter what the excuse the counsel gives, they should have never gotten in this. Period.

I don't think that's true. Accurate or not (mostly not), Westboro operates under the guise of a church. I think it falls completely within Liberty Counsel's bounds to be supporting a church's right to free speech. It would be hypocritical for them not to. Remember, this is about the law and the Constitution, not about your feelings.

So you're okay with the liberty counsel, who supposedly represents "christian values", sticking up for hate and bigotry? I know they said they didn't support them. Well then, show it by staying away from these types of things. And by the way, I know nobody on this board supports what westboro does. I realize that. It just makes me cringe that some in the university would legally support westboro's hateful ignorance. I don't mean your opinion, you are entitled to that of course, I mean the counsel.

[ATrain]

As I've said before, no matter what the excuse the counsel gives, they should have never gotten in this. Period.

I don't think that's true. Accurate or not (completely not), Westboro operates under the guise of a church. I think it falls completely within Liberty Counsel's bounds to be supporting a church's right to free speech. It would be hypocritical for them not to. Remember, this is about the law and the Constitution, not about your feelings.

FIFY. They're a hate group and a cult, nothing more and nothing less.

That said, if LC had been ASKED to support their right to free speech I could see them making a statement and filing a brief like the one they did. However, this seemed to be of LC's and Staver's own initiative, which I think was uncalled for. Would they do the same if someone sued a gay-rights group over protesting a pastor's funeral on public property w/ the proper permits? I'd bet money that they wouldn't.

However, no matter how hateful or bigotted, people DO have a right to free speech and peaceful assembly. Westboro DOES AND SHOULD have the right to do what they do. We don't want to become like Europe where they can outlaw "hate speech." Most European countries have laws against denying the Holocaust, and Switzerland has outlawed whatever the Muslim equivalent of a steeple is. That is a dangerous slippery slop to start going down.

[SuperJon]

I love how every year we have an over enthusiastic student that has to go over the top to "stand up" for something and then everyone else makes it out to be a much smaller deal than the student. It's one of my favorite FF past times.

[jbock13]

I love how every year we have an over enthusiastic student that has to go over the top to "stand up" for something and then everyone else makes it out to be a much smaller deal than the student. It's one of my favorite FF past times.

Sorry, didn't know that conversational thought wasn't allowed. If its wrong to merely ask what other people think, then I'm ready to annoy people. And if at the end of the day we don't agree, we're still a body of believers. It doesn't mean we have to rip each others heads off.

[SuperJon]

I love how every year we have an over enthusiastic student that has to go over the top to "stand up" for something and then everyone else makes it out to be a much smaller deal than the student. It's one of my favorite FF past times.

Sorry, didn't know that conversational thought wasn't allowed. If its wrong to merely ask what other people think, then I'm ready to annoy people. And if at the end of the day we don't agree, we're still a body of believers. It doesn't mean we have to rip each others heads off.

I definitely didn't rip your head off or say that what you have posted wasn't allowed. If you thought that was ripping your head off then you likely won't survive around here. Let me give your a brief history of FF though:

It started in January of 2006. Since then, there has been at least one student a year join the board and get really passionate about something that no one else was that passionate about. I was that student on some things. Like you, I fought and fought and fought for it trying to show that I was right and couldn't believe when other people didn't think it was as big of a deal as I did. The alumni and board veterans laugh at this student while playing along and posting in his thread.

Unfortunately, this time, that student is you. If you stick around (the people who start these threads usually don't so I'd love for you to buck that trend) you will get to see this student pop up about something else around February and then you will be the one laughing.

[jbock13]

I love how every year we have an over enthusiastic student that has to go over the top to "stand up" for something and then everyone else makes it out to be a much smaller deal than the student. It's one of my favorite FF past times.

Sorry, didn't know that conversational thought wasn't allowed. If its wrong to merely ask what other people think, then I'm ready to annoy people. And if at the end of the day we don't agree, we're still a body of believers. It doesn't mean we have to rip each others heads off.

I definitely didn't rip your head off or say that what you have posted wasn't allowed. If you thought that was ripping your head off then you likely won't survive around here. Let me give your a brief history of FF though:

It started in January of 2006. Since then, there has been at least one student a year join the board and get really passionate about something that no one else was that passionate about. I was that student on some things. Like you, I fought and fought and fought for it trying to show that I was right and couldn't believe when other people didn't think it was as big of a deal as I did. The alumni and board veterans laugh at this student while playing along and posting in his thread.

Unfortunately, this time, that student is you. If you stick around (the people who start these threads usually don't so I'd love for you to buck that trend) you will get to see this student pop up about something else around February and then you will be the one laughing.

Alright I can understand. I guess I just don't want to be misunderstood here. I mean I don't have some "cause" or anything, and I'm not here to cause trouble. I just wondered how everyone felt on here because it had been a very controversial thing in my family (as crazy as that may seem).

I apologize to you for being disrespectful.

[Sly Fox]

I think the point SJ is making is that this thread and others like it is part of the culture of FlameFans. Nobody is upset at all to see this revisited. Just know that the veterans can easily identify these types of threads and recognize a new poster's enthusiasm. By no means should this discourage you. If anything, these threads are the spice of life for us around here.

[jmdickens]

again

[makarov97]

...

[ATrain]

I nominate Makarov to receive a new award in 2011: Conspiracy Theorist of the Year!!!

[adam42381]

I nominate Makarov to receive a new award in 2011: Conspiracy Theorist of the Year!!!

Seconded.

[thepostman]

I nominate Makarov to receive a new award in 2011: Conspiracy Theorist of the Year!!!

haha true...but I had no idea he was a democrat. Funny how he is painted as a right wing nut when it appears he is a left wing nut..haha

[jbock13]

Haha and I thought everyone thought I was crazy!

[makarov97]

...

[flamesfan30]

well this thread just took a turn towards awesome.