When the Religious Right pisses and moans about how they're all about moral values, let's take a moment and identify the values they're talking about.
I think this says it all:
Hate and intolerance. What a bunch of mother fuckers.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
This is especially shocking considering how mainstream and listened to Fred Phelps is. Like, he's on TBN and all the big Christian TV channels all the time, and the keynote speaker at every major denominational conference.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
And it certainly isn't like the only members of his church are related to him.
Posted by Marauth (Member # 1320) on :
Words fail me.
As I type I am literally shaking with rage so don't expect me to be nice and accomodating:
I simply cannot think of a decent response to this bull. The anger I felt reading that garbage is something I don't think is safe to share. But I will say this, if I ever, ever, met one of those sons-of-b*tches who wrote that, or read it and took it to heart, I'd cut that black heart out and crush it in my hands before their twisted eyes. This 'pamphlete' makes me sick. What a wonderful start to 2005 for us all eh?
P.S. My apologies to any forum members who may disagree with my admittedly harsh stance towards such 'people' though the term is being used in a very loose defenition.
Edit: for the unenlightened like me - who is Fred Phelps?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
This is (fortunately) one screwball's ideas and NOT represenative of the Religous Right.
If everyone in the Right really was as nuts as this guy, and considering the sway they have in the current administration....I shudder to even consider it, frankly.
Of course, there are some who might agree with this crap, but 99.9% are not crazy fucks like this guy is and would never think the deaths of anyone is call for celebration (not do they believe Sweden is a giant homosexual commune).
Sadly, there's a guy that frequents my work that's *almost as nuts- but he's hailing from the extreme Left. He thinks the Bush administration will be rounding up gays and athiests for concentration camps soon...
Posted by Mighty Blogger Snay (Member # 411) on :
Let's make a distinction between the Religious Right and Christian Americans.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yes, they are seperate- the "Right" I speak of is more of a fundamentalist organization with political clout, whereas the majority of Christians in america are not... fanatical.
This guy though, is as bad- or worse- than even the most screwball Christian Coallition member.
Think of him as the Christian version of the Islamic nuts celebrating after 9/11.
I dont think anyone here believes this nut represents Christians in America (or indeed anywhere in this dimension for that matter). Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Fred Phelps is the angry Time Cube guy of American Christianity, and frankly I think that wasting the time to be shocked by him is both completely disingenuous (Look how insane this one guy is! I bet he's totally representative!) and damaging to the ideals you're trying to support, since it diverts attention away from things that both really matter and involve more rational individuals who might be swayed by such apparently archaic liberal tactics as reasoned debate.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
"Time Cube"? Wasn't that some cheesy sci-fi movie with Christopher Lambert?
I've never heard of this guy before- is he actually on TV or something? Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
You're serious? You've never heard of the Time Cune guy? He's come up in enough discussions here in the past. . . Google it.
Posted by Nim' (Member # 205) on :
What a poor, unrestful man. How unchristian to rationalize away thousands of dead as "they were probably homosexuals most of them".
I read just yesterday of a man who'd lost his wife and two sons, and just lately had found one son under the debris, and asked the swedish embassy for some cooling arrangements because the son's body had become bloated and disfigured.
He wouldn't be too glad to see this. Woe to faggot Sweden indeed.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"99.9% are not crazy fucks like this guy is..."
Well, OK, The Right, being everything except a homogenous entity, is on the whole as far from "mainstream" as most of the music Simon listens to, but The Religious Right, being split up in only two semi-unified camps (Protestant Christian and Fundamentalist Protestant Christian), is a much less broad label (and, as such, quite a lot safer to stick on people), and I don't think shitheads like Phelps are as unrepresentative of the FPC RR as you suggest.
And, of course, you hardly ever hear anyone from the PC RR publically denounce crap like this either, so...
"Fred Phelps is the angry Time Cube guy of American Christianity..."
I thought that was Pat Robertson. Or Rush Limbaugh. Or Jerry Falwell.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, Rush Limbaugh isn't a religious authority at all, so, you know.
As regards the other two, I'd say they're precisely the opposite, since they represent largish groups of people and what they say carries (some) weight with the non-obviously crazy. They're the ones we should reserve our scorn and disdain for.
As far as the "Religious Right" not denouncing Phelps, well, I do see your point, but to extend our analogy, how often does Science or Nature run "Why the Time Cube is not an accurate model of the world" articles?
And, I mean, how often do those of us who are not Christian really delve into the internal workings of the culture? How many of us are reading publications like First Things, or even something easy like Christianity Today? How are we supposed to know what Christians of any stripe are saying about anything if we don't go to the places they're speaking at?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
IT's scary that "Christians" in general dont vocally denounce the slim minority of crazies that generate this kind of bad press.
Much like with Muslim extremists, the mainstream does not agree with them, but generally does not denounce them either.
You'll never see Falwell or any of the TV preachers denounce this kind of thing- even if they dont agree with it (though falwell probably does).
It gives the religion a bad name in general (less so in countries where the religion in question is the majority).
The strangest thing about this guy's notion is that God would punish the 'Gay Sweden" by causing a earthquake in Indonisia. You'd think the Allmighty would have better aim.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, as Simon pointed out, the normal followers of any given religion shouldn't really be required to spend all their waking hours telling people about how crazy the crazies are. Just like real physicists don't go around talking about Gene Ray. And real biologists don't spend much of their time arguing against creationists. They have better things to do, so they just ignore the wackos and hope everyone else does the same.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
"Hoping the wackos go away" only goes so far when the "wackos" seem to multiply in number geometricaly each year and when political lobbiests often work for the more extreme minority.
Posted by Irishman (Member # 1188) on :
I would urge a full investigation of this flyer, to determine how factual it is, for example I have read it through several times and don't see a reference to a Fred Phelps. Where exactly did those who mentioned him here find him in connection to this flyer?
As far as the Christian American response, of course it will not be monolithic. There are a great many Christian Americans who believe that homosexuality is a sin simply because the Book says so. However, they do realize that there is no hierarchy of sin in the eyes of God, and that homosexual behaviour is no more sinful than lust or philandering in the straight world. Certainly such people are not hated by God, nor should they be hated by God's people.
That's my 2 cents.
Posted by Mighty Blogger Snay (Member # 411) on :
Irishman,
Fred Phelps founded the Westboro Baptist Church. This flier was found on their webpage. Google can be a wonderful research tool - it would have taken you five seconds to find the connection for yourself, if you'd bothered.
Posted by MarianLH (Member # 1102) on :
Fred "god hates fags" Phelps is something of a legend in altsex communities, and homosexuality is his particular hobbyhorse. Even among fundamentalist fruit loops he's in a class by himself. No one I know considers him to be representative of Christians, or even fundamentalists. The man is a wacko's wacko.
Marian
Posted by Melian (Member # 1469) on :
It's slightly interesting the guy who was jailed actually contacted these people to ask them to *stop* supporting him as he thought they went even too far for him, and he's not exactly pro-gay.
I'd be surprised if they'd even be able to pinpoint us on a map, though.
Posted by Doctor Jonas (Member # 481) on :
I don't think he can pinpoint his country's outer realms, like Iraq, either.
Anyway, fundies are everywhere. Is there a true danger that they turn into the Christian version of Muslim muhajdeens and start blowing up stuff everywhere? I don't think so... they are much like barking dogs.
Is there a true danger people being sympathising with their cause? That I don't know.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Sure there's a "true danger of them blowing up stuff"! Plenty of Abortion Clinics and the doctors that work in them opertate in mortal danger every day.
All it takes is an athiest in the White House for their targets to branch out to government buildings....they're that dangerpous. ...and just like the muslim version, these extremists are often sheltered by those that sympathise with them on religous grounds.
Watch the crowd at a speach by Pat Robertson to see a truly scary bunch of zealots.
Posted by Melian (Member # 1469) on :
From where did this people surge? Where do they come from and what drives them? How many are they?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
From their secret lair under Washington D.C., of course. Possibly also from Uranus.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Blame the Pilgrims.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Oh...I do. (shakes fist in the air)
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"All it takes is an athiest in the White House..."
Unfortunately, that's something that won't happen within any of our lifetimes. An atheist couldn't get elected to most city councils, much less the presidency of the United States.
Posted by Doctor Jonas (Member # 481) on :
There's a too strong relationship between religion and state in the US. And in most countries, too...
What happened to all those freemasons plaguing the first steps of your Republic? When did this turn so bad?
Posted by Irishman (Member # 1188) on :
TSN, Let's not assume that an atheist that make sit to the highest office in the land won't also have axes to grind with organized religion. This fear goes both ways.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I'd settle for a President that was not in Organized Christianity's pocket. One that really believes that Church and State should be seperate.
Posted by Nim' (Member # 205) on :
Update: Our media has started mentioning Fred "Yeehaw" Phelps as well now, even godhatesfags.com came up. When asked about the affair, �ke Green declared that he was currently researching ways to sue the pastor and the websites who used his name for their agenda.
One of our major newspapers (Aftonbladet) interviewed Phelps, who at one point had claimed that 20 000 swedes had died in Asia with God's help. The reporter informed him that only about 2000 are missing right now, and Phelps answered "Really? That's too bad. I wish all of you would die."
I also hear the Westboro congregation will picket outside stores who sell Electrolux-products, just for being of swedish manufacture. Good job Fred.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
It sounds like they've got some serious priority issues, then. I would think one of the most deadly natural diasters in history would sort of drown out one crazy guy and his family.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Phelps' house is probably wall-to-wall Ikea.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
I have to give my kudos to Green for distancing himself from Phelps.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: Phelps' house is probably wall-to-wall Ikea.
Almost certainly.
Sad that he's getting any media attention though.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
diasters
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Twice as good as monasters.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
I didn't know Simon was into herbs. But then, I didn't know he was into packing fruit, either.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Anyone got a link as to exactly why Green was arrested (if in fact he really was- who can tell what grain of truth might be in Phelp's tract?)?
What law could he have broken there? Some sort of anti-defamation thing?
In the US, First Amendment rights would have certainly protected him from anything short of encitig violence towards gays.
Posted by Nim' (Member # 205) on :
He was quoted in a sermon as saying that "the gay movement is a satanical protest movement against The Lord", and that "these sexual abnormities are as a cancer tumour on the body of society" and that (homosexuality) "opens the gateway to bestiality and pedophilia".
He did throw in the "but hey we shouldn't judge them, after all Jesus didn't"-card in the end of the sermon, but according to the court it didn't negate the previous statements.
Our national association for sexual equality (RFSL) reported him to the authorities, who tried him as the first swedish case ever under the "agitation against an ethnic group"-clause after homosexuals had been recognized as an ethnic group. He was sentenced to 30 days of jail last year.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
Ethnic group?
Doesn't sound right to me.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
A translation problem, perhaps? I suppose that, by the very loosest of dictionary definitions, "ethnic" could apply here. But it's certainly not the way the word is actually used by... anyone.
Posted by Nim' (Member # 205) on :
Ethnic as in a part of the population. Since their persecution has singled them out so distinctly (through hate crimes), I'm not surprised the decision was made.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
It still seems very shakey ground for a jail sentence. The problem I have with such legislation (here is "hate crimes" laws) is that they're putting someone on trial for an idea.
If anything, it hurts the agrieved party (in this case gays). After all, who wants to be associated with a group that has to hide behind a vague law? It will probably serve as a rallying point for all those that already dont like gays and certainly wont prevent anyone from further "agitation".
If someone hated the group I beling to (the albino leprechauns of Florida), I'd rather let my enemies show themselves, rather than have them rally in private. Posted by Nim' (Member # 205) on :
Let me get this straight, you would rather the government did tolerate the threats and slander you receive from those people in the treehouse down by the river?
quote:After all, who wants to be associated with a group that has to hide behind a vague law?
Maybe those who appreciate their government recognizing their plight.
And I don't think the law is there for this interest (better word) group to hide from, as much as it is a sign that the lawmakers are aware that this group takes much more flak than others.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
It's a sign that the government thinks that by outlawing the vocalization of an idea that they think the idea will go away.
Free speach and the expression of ideas (even idiotic hate-filled ones) lead to open communication of ideas (and in this case, showcased a clergyman's ideas on homosexuality- ideas that many in his own congregation might have never known he had before).
I feel that limiting anyone's right to speak their mind diminishes everyone. Posted by Nim' (Member # 205) on :
Propaganda and idealistic diatribe that questions the value of human life abuses the right of free speech. We shut down nazi web pages and sites with death threats within our borders, and I agree that �ke Green stepped over the line.
Free speech doesn't mean that you can say anything you like.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Isn't that the whole point of free speech? Posted by Nim' (Member # 205) on :
Oh you know what I mean, threatening a policeman or statesman, slandering a person or a group. When it harms others.
Chairman Mao took away the right of expression for anticommunists. The free nations of the west haven't done that to any group, but there are exceptions to the Freedom of Speech.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Well, the issue of exactly where your right to free speech ends, or should end, and someone else's right to well-being begins, or should begin, is, you know, still one of the more aggressive shrubs in the garden of life, and not quite as easily pruned as that.
[ January 12, 2005, 09:01 AM: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Posted by Irishman (Member # 1188) on :
Nim, speech doesn't harm, unless fear is now considered harm.
Posted by Nim' (Member # 205) on :
Irishman, what planet do you live on? Are you saying verbal abuse and persecution are fantasy concepts?
Yes, I would say putting fear in another person would be considered psychologically harming them. I would even go as far as saying it would be considered a threat.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I think it's kind of silly for us non-Swedes to jump in here with our very limited knowledge of this case; and I don't really want to get into the issue of hate crimes and speech and so on, because I don't really have any insights of my own to share, but, all that being said, the idea that governments are responsible for our self-esteem does kind of weigh oddly on my mind.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I asked abouut the Swedish law pertaining to this case because -here- someone could not (thankfully) be arrested for saying a group was immoral or damned or whatever.
In the US, there are certainly limits to free speach- mostly regarding threats, inciting violence or slander of a person (the legal definition of slander being an outright lie told to defame a person. Groups and oreganizations dont apply). This pastor's speach (I'd love to read a transcript if anyone has a link to the case) does not seem to fall inro any of the above categories so his arrest seems heavy-handed and oppressive (to me).
Yet he was arrested. Jailed for speaking his mind.
I'd defend this guy's right to blather on about the "evils of homosexuality" if only because the next government administration might want to extend the curtailing of speach to "protect" the government, private business or....well... anything they choose.
After all, if the people will accept some limits on their freedom to speak their mind...what's a few more?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Of course, you do live in a country where according to this poll, 40% of your population is in favour of limiting civil rights for arab Americans, so I'd be careful about doing the whole "woopee go US freedom!" thing.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
It's all rooted in the difference in attitude between those who believe in negative fredom (classical liberal/New Right idea that people should be free from government restrictions) and positive freedom (modern liberal/social democratic idea that the government should legislate to give equality if opportunity and freedom from persecution/oppression/whatever).
I can't quite believe I managed to remember that much from A level politics...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: Of course, you do live in a country where according to this poll, 40% of your population is in favour of limiting civil rights for arab Americans, so I'd be careful about doing the whole "woopee go US freedom!" thing.
Phht. Polls are made to "prove" the viewpoints of those doing the polling. THey're worthless as they dont really speak for the majority, but only a sampling that that statistically might represent the majority.
The same people could hold a poll showing that 40% of people believe in alien abductions (indeed there is a poll showing exactly that).
It does not change my viewpoint though (and I'm not cheering "GO America"- your country enjoys the same basic freedoms). Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I am all for media skepticism, but, uh, statistics, on its own, is sound mathematical practice, not mystical conjuring per se.
I mean, sure; lies, damn lies, etc. All true, but you seem to be suggesting that one should distrust statistics as statistics, as opposed to the various flawed ways they might be gathered.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
No, I'm suggesting that many of these polls are slanted in such a way as to further the agenda/opinion of those doing the polling nad are in no way objective.
For instance, if they polled the same cross-section of americans during the daytime weekday and during the daytime weekend, the results would vary wildly (as one may represent the unemployed more than the other).
There's far too many variables to say that a sampling represents a country of millions....unless they polled hundreds of thousands of people from all age, race, economic and geographic niches- and I really dont think this poll did that, do you?).
If such polling is accurate, how can there be polls showing that almost 70% of americans oppose the Patriot Act (I've seen Moveon.org polls showing that one (surely slanted to their own viewpoint).?
The polls cant be really used as accurate unless all those doing the polling are asking thir questions of the same number of people, from the same diversity.
A poll in rural georgia will, of course, yield a far diffrent result than one done in downtown San Fransisco. Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...unless they polled hundreds of thousands of people from all age, race, economic and geographic niches..."
Not that I pretend to understand it, but I've been led to believe that, beyond a certain point, too many respondents will make the poll less accurate.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I've got no beef with the spirit of your complaints, but; "There's far too many variables to say that a sampling represents a country of millions" isn't fair at all. Sampling works. (Now, if you want to claim that polls often do not select the proper samples, you're making an entirely different argument; but if we're talking about specifics we really ought to have some specific examples to talk about.)
Hmmm...I just cant accept a poll (or sampling) without at least knowing the criteia used (numbers of people polled, areas used, times called etc.). Or the motivations of those doing the polling. (after all, "Americans favor restricting Muslim Rights" is going to sell more papers than "Americans favor equal rights")
I thought about this some today as I read the local paper (The Sun Sentinel). I think the overall integrity of the media (newspapers in particular) has been on the decline -considerably- in recent years.
We're probably only a decade or less from newspapers (or their reportrs) fabricating major stories on a regular basis in an attempt o scoop their compitition.
I think there's a real resistance to investigate what the media reports....and no real consequences for those caught with fabricated stories (indivuals are ruined, but there's no real punishment for the company that allowed it to happen).
I wonder if it wont degenerate back to the warmongering for headlines of the Spainish-American War.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"We're probably only a decade or less from newspapers (or their reportrs) fabricating major stories on a regular basis in an attempt o scoop their compitition."
Not that they really have to, when the White House does it for them.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
C'mon...I expect a trained reporter to come up with more plausable lies than the White House.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Actually, I was referring to that thing where the WH paid an advertising agency to record fake news reports, which they then gave to networks to air during their news broadcasts.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
And then there was that expos� where they revealed that John Kerry is suffering from Minbari War Syndrome. . .
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Oh, right. After they found out how he threw his Battle of the Line medal over the White House fence...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: And then there was that expos� where they revealed that John Kerry is suffering from Minbari War Syndrome. . .
Does that mean John Edwards is Lorien? If he's what's keeping Kerry alive, he's not doing a very good job.
I can easly see Maria Hines-Kerry as Delinn (neither seems to get Earth humor very much). Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
"I am Heinz. I stand between ze ketchup and ze baked beans. . ."
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
I was enjoying some of the more original insults on that side ("You are drippings from the Devil's own penis" is one I plan to use daily), but he's lost some of my respect with "his grinning kids look slutty & gay!" That's just playground level, that is.
Posted by Doctor Jonas (Member # 481) on :
I am thoroughly convinced. He's quoting the Deuteronomy! He went beyond Leviticus now! This is PROOF!
And, yeah, Liam, you're right... my kid can invent better insults. And he's four.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
So, remind me, is this site real or a parody? I can't keep track.
Posted by Nim' (Member # 205) on :
God bless the USA for having the foresight to protect freedom of speech. If it weren't for that, inhuman creeps like these would be driven underground to spew their drivel. At least this way, we all know who they are.
Posted by Nim' (Member # 205) on :
If you knew who they were you wouldn't need Homeland Security. Posted by Nim' (Member # 205) on :
It seems Sweden is far from the only country to start taking a stand in the issue. Go Maple Leaf!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)