Six children and four adults—ten members of one family--died from smoke inhalation in a house fire in Bardstown, Kentucky on Tuesday night. Before the overwhelmed, desolate, surviving family had finalized funeral arrangements; Westboro Baptist Church had already organized the protest for this funeral.
Shirley Phelps-Roper, a member of the church led by Fred Phelps, gave one of their typical reasons used when protesting funerals, “to show that their deaths are God's punishment for a "filthy" nation that has disobeyed "His will." The Southern Poverty Law Center declared them a hate group, the Anti-Defamation League monitors them, and they are enough to make any sane person admit that God does create garbage.
Those not familiar with this Topeka, Kansas traveling compost heap should check out their websites: GodHatesFags.com, and GodHatesAmerica.com, and other sites expressing condemnation of homosexuals, Roman Catholics, Swedish Muslims, Jews, and other groups. While not known to be directly connected to the Christian Identity movement, many of Phelps' sermons reflect the same warped principles.
In an unfortunately completely unrelated story, officials used explosives to free a bargethat has been stranded at the McAlpine Dam nearby since January 16. If I ruled the world, the explosives would catch the Westboro group as they travel across the Ohio River in the back of their poster and hate filled pick-up truck to get to the Bardstown funeral.
Also, if I ruled the world, the WHAS announcer who reported this story would look at the word Bardstown, realize there is not a letter ‘g’ anywhere in the word, and would stop saying Bargetown. She would also know that the city she lives in and speaks for is named after King Louis, not King Lua, and ville rhymes with Bill, not bull, and that there is not now and never has been a letter ‘h’ in the middle of the word Hurstbourne, so that word should not be pronounced Hurshburn. And, that letter on the end of Broadbend is a D, not a T. They don’t even look alike. Get it straight. Please.
Sorry. I will return to my original religious rant.
Tax dollars support sickness masquerading as art at Sundance Film Festival
Scared? That has to be the purpose of this latest sensationalized headline from the AFA(possibly in the running for most dangerous group in my opinion, since they are almost as misguided as the Westboro cult and much larger) targets PBS. They are asking their million cult members to email their Senators and Representatives to ask that they stop supporting the National Endowment for the Arts and PBS with tax money (after all, an educated country is not easy to control).
I urge everyone to counter the narrow-minded views of this group by contacting your elected officials in support of the arts. You may do so here.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 97
When he protests funerals here, there is an organization of Bikers who rally together to line the streets revving up their Hawgs and causing enough noise so that Mr Phelps can not be heard.
I'm anti death penalty in most cases, but it wouldn't hurt my feelings at all if someone sent this man to meet his Maker
(I had to delete and rewrite this because I missed a comma, the first one said "Sandy Fred Phelps" :::SHUDDER::: Sorry about that)
Thanks, everyone. And, I'm glad the notice went out this time.
I also agree that AFA is more of a threat as it has such wide spread influence. Fred Phelps' church members are seen by the great majority of people for just what they are. I doubt very much that they have converted any people by their appearance at funerals. They are just such an infringement on the families' mourning and grief.
"he Southern Poverty Law Center declared them a hate group, the Anti-Defamation League monitors them, and they are enough to make any sane person admit that God does create garbage."
as there was , but dogma, only one case of divine impegnation and certainly Jesus wouldn't be pumping the pompoms for the Phelps clan-- so hate to say, but Phelps are just humans begotten by other humans. Just don't blame God for their existence--besides you're supposedly an atheist so God does not exist, therefore God cannot make garbage.
That reminds me, where do the Westboro people get money to be going to all these places and "protest" if no one supports them?
The Westboro church is full of evil people - mostly in the same family. Their obsession with funerals is curious. Hasn't anyone ever died in their family? I just wonder what it is that makes them come out for these funerals. So far, they have picked on military, the Amish, and now these folks (and others, I'm sure). These targets seem awfully lame to me. If they have a point to make - make it. What exactly is their point?
I'm not sure what Westboro's point is with this funeral, other than because of the number of deaths they believe it will get lots of air time. As far as I know, there have been no reports that anyone in the house was gay.
Joe, the point is that these people mistakenly believe that they are in some way superior, and that they must run off all who are different. They hide behind "god" to lend legitimacy to their rants, but they are basiclly just ignorant, substandard human beings.
And RE: Mary's comment - I too am an atheist, but use the word god to relate to what these people pretend to stand for. "God" is their higher power, their belief system, so addressing them in their own language is appropriate.
The whole "God Don't Make Junk" thing is a catch-phrase of these christians-of-convenience.
Oh sorry, Sandy, I still didn't get notified! I found this by mistake again, or actually, looking for something you wrote!
When I first encountered that phrase, it was a caution to look for the good in every student -- in every person you met -- rather than making a snap/superficial judgment, or accepting someone else's assessment rather than making one of your own. How very sad that this has been twisted into something so ugly.
And how hideous that they can call themselves Christians yet evidence none of the compassion essential to that faith.
Flagged again. There is nothing in this article or in the comment thread that should be flagged, so I will expect the Gather reviewer to consider this yet another instance of someone purposely, wrecklessly, maliciously, and dishonestly using their system to torment me.
I do know that the Move On organization has mounted a counter-movement against the funding cuts to NPR and PBS. Bush's budget will mean cuts on federal funding to public radio and TV by 25% which could mean the end of children's educational programs like "Sesame Street", "Living Rainbow" and "Arthur", not to mention the undermining of the free press on radio.
Let's put an end to the constant threats to NPR and PBS. Let's ask Congress to guarantee funding and stop partisan meddling. Here's an easy way to get involved... clicking here will add your name to the petition being sent to your representatives in Congress:
MoveOn petition
The hate groups you discuss in your article make me sick. There has to be a way to allow for free speech to somehow block these idiots from protesting at funerals! It seems to me they are clearly hateful, so if they break a single law, I don't care how minor, the DA or AG should throw the book at them using the hate crime laws.
Thanks for the link Sandy. I had gotten a call to action from moveon.org this morning regarding the PBS stuff, but had not heard the Phelps story yet. You provide a great service by posting stories with links to protest these hate groups.
Thanks for the link! EVERYONE should ust this link MORE OFTEN!
I have read about the group before, and I think their behavour is disgusting! I liked reading about the bikers using their cycles to drown them out!! Too bad there isn't a way to silence them for good.
Atheism means lack of belief in a devine power (god). I believe in many things, which I will not go into here, but I do not believe there is a "god". That is not a religion.
And no, we should not EVER give up rights to stop these people. That would be, to put it mildly, counterproductive.
I disagree with Monica that these people are not Christian. They are Christians, by definition, which means no one has the right to judge or hold them responsible for their actions. They do what they do based on their interpretation of biblical teachings; they belong to Christian-based churches; they speak in the name of Jesus and the Christian God; and, they receive tax-exempt status as official churches. The large majority of criminals, especially of hate-related crimes in this country are Christians, riding on the belief that they were all "created imperfect" but will be forgiven or saved if they only join the appropriate groups and tell others who do not hate and commit the same crimes/sins that they will burn in hell if they don't also join the groups. Others who consider themselves "real" Christians tell me that they cannot remove the Baptist or Christian church affiliations from these groups because the church welcomes everyone.
I think it has to be one way or the other; everyone is welcome in the church/religion, or not.
Durham, you seem confused about more than punctuation and spelling. This craziness is not the result of refusing to give up our rights. This is the result of what happens when bigoted, ignorant people stick together and act out their ugliness.
I support everyone's right to remain as ignorant as they want, for as long as they want to be, as long as they keep their ignorance out of my government and my life. And then, when they step into my life, I want the right to fight them with everything they don't have - facts, intelligence, decency, and freedom of speech.
(I mention the punctuation because I know--with an 'n'--someone else who shares your opinion and consistently punctuates exactly the same as you have here. It's almost eerie to see two people think and write so much alike.)
It's time for the Aleatoric party to put down the 40 ouncers and rev up the campaign engine. If they can't bring chaos to the political process no one can.
I like to hedge(hog) my bets. I'm an agnostic. Presently I'm leaning toward the God doesn't exist point of view but new evidence might come in at any time.
Organizations like the AFA and the Westboro Church of Phelpsism don't do much to burnish the image of Christianity.
I'm sorry, they're NOT Christians--I don't care what they say or what anybody else says. I can call myself a small black and white cat--it doesn't make me one.
The Bible does say that towards the end, some of the worst people will come out claiming to represent God. And you can see where that is leading.
People think those crazies are Christians, and then place all Christians along side them.
I don't blame liberals for the actions of the unabomber for killing in the name of liberalism and environmentalism. I don't blame them for the actions of ELF and ALF either.
Dont forget to keep supporting NOCH! Bye sweeties!
If those Christians who do not want the rest of us to believe these people are "true" Christians want to make a valid argument, I believe it is necessary to remove all bible language in the discussion, remove all religion from the government (including tax deductions to churches), and find some way to stop these people from being able to put Christian church signs on their buildings and in their official names. Otherwise, these people ARE Christians.
I will agree that quoting the bible to promote a point of view is ridiculous and shouldn't be taken seriously. The bible is a metaphoric guide not a legitimate source to take literally in public policy.
Seriously, it makes me happy when this happens. We can't always disagree and it's fun to find the points where we can agree.
Are you talking about the Phelps sisters?
First of all, the ABA is a voluntary organization that has no ability to sanction anyone. Secondly, the courts are open to all of us. The Phelps sisters have been relatively successful in their litigation and the courts tend not to sanction anyone who wins the lawsuit. The fruits of the litigation is a primary source of income for the church. As long as they present a litigable issue, they have every right to sue. Not liking them is not a ground for sanctioning counsel.
LOVE IT!!
Also, I'll go so far as to say that "masser Phelps an' his followers be represent'n the Antichrist" and as such should be very publicly exposed and discredited in a way that puts him out of business. The legal muscle that he wields only means that a case against him needs to be witnessed and proven before it is taken to public and court.
(Black term of disrespect intended even though I'm white.)
Someone needs to start taking shots at Phelp's head.
To not recognize grief and let it resolve without interference is a crime in itself.
I've seen the National Endowment come under attack before. I think the premise was anyone that supported Marplethorpe's images was not in the best interest of the public.
I agree with Lori that no church shoiuld be given tax-exempt status.
Chris, has Marplethorpe suggested his work should be forced upon anyone who is not interested? Offered it to children, or traveled around the country displaying it at funerals? (I don't know anything about this story, so can't have an opinion without more information.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mapplethorpe
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2000/05/21/loc_mapplethorpe_battle.html
$643,200 for a print of a photo? wow.
Jeff, I want complete separation of church and state, which means I do not want religious groups running our social programs. My experience (believe it or not, I have been involved with many churches) has been that the Seventh Day Adventists were the only group who came close to being able to put their religious beliefs aside when dealing with others who did not share their beliefs.
Since we have moved to this topic, maybe someone can clear up another muddy area for me. I don't understand the 'generosity' of people who would not donate if they did not receive a tax break for doing so (the common argument for not touching tax exempt status is that people would stop giving), or the goodness in documenting and asking credit/recognition for giving. I believe true goodness comes from the heart and asks nothing in return.
Something seems really wrong about allowing people to:
(1) get a kick-back from the government for their "kindness"
(2) complain that the government gives "their" hard-earned dollars to others when they cashed in twice themselves, through tax breaks and keeping their charitable contributions where they can control who gets them and how
I like PBS and think they have a lot of educational programs that are very beneficial to the public. I saw an amazing program on quantum physics that was incredibly interesting. The people who are calling for the end to federal funding have a point though. Same holds true for the National Endowment for the Arts. You cant use Federal funds to promote religion and I agree with that. But both PBS and NEA have promoted anti-Christin messages in the programs on PBS and in the form of art at the NEA.
I don't understand how you can have one and not the other. It seems like a double standard and the public is paying for it so I have to agree with the fundies on this one. I certainly wouldn't want to stop funding but there should be new guidelines as to what can be aired.
If someone insists that Phelps is a Christian, it seems to me they are doing exactly what he wants them to do - turn the opinion of his twisted vision into accepted Christian dogma. That does not make sense to me if one is fundamentally opposed to his message, unless one wants to see the Christian faith protrayed in a disparaging light. It is kinda like the Islamic world, slow to denounce radical extremests, therefore all Muslims are radicals. Then there is the sect of Rabbis that want to see an end to the Jewish state because they fear it means the beginning of the end. There are always going to be extremeists that wish to twist the core of religious belief, but that does not strictly make them part of that faith.
The logic is a bit weak. I am confused and I must admit I need to munch on this a while.
I don't see anything illogical about calling those who are allowed to carry the Christian name, and perform these actions in the name of Christianity, Christians, as long as the Christians allow them to do so and support these groups.
I imagine at that point, you have to examine where your energies are best utilized.
My point wasn't about pushing the work on people it was the fact that freedom of expression was being attacked by zealots.
The problem is, either we define Christianity in a consistent way or not, and when pressed for a definition, Christians and non-Christians alike will give belief in God and belief in Jesus as the Messiah as both necessary and sufficient conditions. But then when it comes to beliefs/behaviors by other self-professed Christians they don't like, Christians will often say: well that's not true Christianity. This method creates as many ad hoc exclusionary definitions as needed for people to distance themselves from things they disapprove of, which is a great many indeed. Kind of like the No True Scotsman fallacy.
A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
B: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
Al: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
The discussion of what is/is not a Christian got me thinking. What exactly defines a Christian? Are there believing Christians who are "good" and others who are "bad?"
I'll give you my opinion, and it's very simple. If you believe in the basic tenets of Christianity...Jesus is the son of God, was born by immaculate conception and was miraculously resurrected, etc...then you ARE a Christian. And by that definition, I think you have to say that Phelps is a Christian.
I can say I have been influenced by your point Aniko. I think back on my Religion and Magic coursework in college, and academically Christianity can, and should be, socially defined. In that sense, Phelps is Christian. I think I can agree that he believes himself Christian and society can label him so. But his behavior is anything but Christ like. How can we logically (or emotinally) reconcile the two in our personal understanding of Christianity? Bert's questions hit this target well. I guess that I personally have a difficult time defining the spiritual core of religious belief with academic definitions.
Hitler considered himself a Christian - so did Vlad III, prince of Wallachia (Vlad the Impaler). Horrid wars have been waged in the name of Christianity. This happens when we bring politics and religion together. But even so, you cannot deny the compassion of the prophets' message that is at the heart of the faith - the very same compassion that could not condone Phelps' behavior. That leads to another sticky point. Despite the catholic church, there is no universal christian church at this point, and it is very likely there never will be. So coming to an oversimplified consensus of what definitively labels a "christian" seems more than a little inadequate.
I guess I am leary of the slippery slope of identifying an entire faith based on the actions of its extremists. For example, if we say there are ten million fanatics that consider Phelps' opinion christian "law," that would still be far less than 1/10 of 1% of the world's christian population.
It is easy to point fingers and then move your aim just a bit.
You will like this one. It's a video from the old Bravo Channel "The Awful Truth, where Michael Moore gets a pink RV called the "Sodomobile" and a dozen gay guys and tracks down Fred Phelps. It's quite funny.
theawfultruth
But that's not what we're doing. Saying that Phelps is a Christian doesn't mean that all [or any substantial number of] Christians are like Phelps any more than saying that Paris Hilton is a woman means that I look anything like her. :-)
I'm going to check out the Michael Moore movie now... thanks, Carl.
It's like the halcyon days of the KKK in the 20s when they ran state governments and had huge parades in many cities.
Thanks again for the clip, Carl. Lyrical and I both watched it again and I've sent it to friends. I think the perfect job (for me, anyway) would be to work for Michael Moore.
Are there "good" Christians and "bad" Christians? Maybe even "evil" Christians?
Of course there are. I don't know if there are serial killers who are devout Christians, but I suspect there are. As someone said earlier, Hitler considered himself a Christian. All kinds of people adopt religion and not all of them are good guys. (or gals)
Well, I suppose it depends on your definition of good, bad and evil. Some would say that an anti-abortionist who murders a doctor at an abortion clinic is doing God's work. But I think most people would disagree with that, just as the vast majority of Muslims would agree that the Islamist terrorists who flew planes into the WTC were profoundly evil.
My point...religions are neither good nor evil. It's the people who practice or malpractice them who are. However, when the leaders of an organized religion fail to deplore atrocities committed by their followers, then the religion itself is suspect.
In this case, I think most Christians would deplore Phelps and his followers.
In the case of the WTC, far too many Muslims have failed to offer more than tepid disclaimers. That is a shame, and I think the current rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric in this country is a result of that perceived tacit approval.
I would bet my life that there are serial killers who are devout Christians. I know there are many devout Christians who enjoy killing innocent people in Afghanistan and Iraq (I llost my appetite and eft my meal on the table in a restaurant the night I heard a group of them shouting things like, "Nuke them all.") I know there are devout Christians who do many evil things, daily.
Since I probably know more non-religious people than most, I believe I can make a fair assessment of the difference between people who use religion as a moral compass and those who don't. The non-Christian people overwhelmingly live the more "wholesome" lives because they instinctively do the right things. The Christians invariably excuse themselves with platitudes: We are all human. And, If we accept Christ as our savior we will be healed. The Christians assume a superior attitude, as though they have the right to judge everyone around them harshly, and let themselves off the hook. They seem to think that getting caught is the problem, not doing the wrong, and to believe money or power justifies anything they don't get caught doing.
I agree with you on most things but, going only by the few words you included about Muslims and the WTC attack in your last comment, think we probably do not agree on this topic. However, I think the problem is far too deep to cover in this comment box.
Yes. Most in fact. Want more? The vast majority were raised by an over-the-top holy roller female... Just ask me, I'll tell ya. When I left shrinkhood to go into criminology, Serial Killers were my specialty (long before a TV series existed on profilers.)
Honey, I can look at a crime scene and tell you details on the killer you would not believe, down to the car they were likely driving. So when I tell you that zealot religious nutcases raise them right and left, you can bank on it. But hey, don't take my word for it even... I am sure the info is all over the web somewhere.
Let me clarify my last statement: I don't blame Muslims in countries like Iraq and Palestine for not speaking up and criticizing terrorists. To do so would be to make themselves an immediate target. In Iraq many who "collaborated" with the Americans have been murdered.
But Muslims in the rest of the world...here and in Europe...haven't been very vocal. Or if they have, the media haven't reported it. Knowing our media, that may be the problem, come to think of it.
What I can say for myself is that I believe that all people are inevitably sinful, but for all of us there is hope and most of all Grace. People do horrid things in the name of Christianity, but people do horrid things in the name of atheism, mysticism, or any other belief set you can name. Does that mean that all atheist are horrid people? Not any more than stereotyping Christians in that manner.
I do not accept what this "church" has done, and I do not think their actions in any way represent Christianity. It is closed minded people like this that cause problems. But being closed minded to seeing that these people do not represent Christianity as a whole is just as dangerous. You basically state that you'd like to see religious freedom taken away from all because of what some have done. How would that be any different from trying to force one religion on the whole world?
I believe in a God who calls people to Him out of their own free will. With this gift of free will, we are all entitled to make whatever choices on earth we choose. Some choose Christianity; others choose no religion at all. Some choose to be Muslim, Wiccan, or other various religions. Our choices based on our free will have repercussions, both on earth, and in my opinion, in the after-life. It a decision each person makes, and many make poor choices.
The quality of the choice is in the eye of the beholder, and nobody, NOBODY knows who has made the "right" choice. If there is an afterlife (which I doubt) that is when we will find out who made the right choice.
Personally, I think that leading a useful, ethical life, having concern for my fellow man, and helping those who are less fortunate is much more important that what religion I choose.
Right, Monica. Human nature seems to abhor peace and understanding, though. Or at least, some segment of humanity does, and they are the ones who seek power, wealth, and domination of others. Ambition is a good thing when it prods us into doing great things...but it has its dark side.
–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Still.
I would hope that those of us who share BONGO's views...which I do...remain open to new ideas and information. Nothing that I have ever encountered in my life has given me the slightest indication that a Supreme Being exists. If a voice from the heavens speaks to me tomorrow, I am willing to change my mind, though.
I believe in reincarnation so that means something greater than 'me' exists to keep that cycle going. I believe that something is an extension of all of us, not one supreme being, but still think that holding this belief probably precludes me from true atheism (which is fine with me since I don't need a label).
In my opinion, God is just a word people use to address whatever they turn to for wisdom or comfort. By that definition, I believe in a God, but my God is not a supreme "being" and is in my control, not the other way around.