Jump to content
IGNORED

Westboro Baptist Church


MorningGlory

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Servant
  • Followers:  25
  • Topic Count:  275
  • Topics Per Day:  0.05
  • Content Count:  5,208
  • Content Per Day:  1.00
  • Reputation:   1,893
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/02/2010
  • Status:  Offline

Simply thinking homosexuality is a sin is enough to get you labeled as a bigot in every day life in a lot of places in this country, right now. It's not a stretch to think that there are people in power who would use this group of people being added to the list to attempt to take it a lot farther, in my opinion.

Being designated a 'hate group' in the U.S. is not persecution. Nothing would happen to these people other than being put into a category where they belong. Their protests would still be legal.

It is persecution as it adds you to a watch list which gets you surveiled by the FBI and allows them to obtain warrants to monitor your activity without your knowledge based, in part, on that designation, which is counter to a constitutionally established right to privacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  28
  • Topic Count:  338
  • Topics Per Day:  0.05
  • Content Count:  15,673
  • Content Per Day:  2.46
  • Reputation:   8,494
  • Days Won:  39
  • Joined:  10/25/2006
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  02/27/1985

I, personally, will not sign it, on principle. While I have no love for what they do, I do feel they have the right to do it-freedom of religion. Once we start asking the government to come down and label any religions instition a "hate group" then its just a downhill slope from there, sooner or later, the government will start making any church a hate group and outlawing them altogether. We dont need government interference, that will just lead to our rights taken away-we need to realize that the people of westboro, need Christs love to, and find a way to stop them without the government. Maybe if the media would just stop advertising what they do, it would go along way. They need Christs love-not government interference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357

I, personally, will not sign it, on principle. While I have no love for what they do, I do feel they have the right to do it-freedom of religion.

Freedom of religion was never meant to include what they do. i think a little common sense is needed instead of thinking that everything some nut does in the name of religion is protected by the Constitution. We need to go back to the intent of the founders instead of letting the liblerals define what freedom of religion means for us. Getting rid of the nuts will in now way create a slippery slope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357

Simply thinking homosexuality is a sin is enough to get you labeled as a bigot in every day life in a lot of places in this country, right now. It's not a stretch to think that there are people in power who would use this group of people being added to the list to attempt to take it a lot farther, in my opinion.

Being designated a 'hate group' in the U.S. is not persecution. Nothing would happen to these people other than being put into a category where they belong. Their protests would still be legal.

It is persecution as it adds you to a watch list which gets you surveiled by the FBI and allows them to obtain warrants to monitor your activity without your knowledge based, in part, on that designation, which is counter to a constitutionally established right to privacy.

Westboro members are the persecutors, in this case, not the government. Their actions demand and require intervention. It is part of the government carrying the sword on the behalf of the rest of us. They need to be on a watch list and be monitored.

Sorry, but you have a warped view of what persecution is. It is their actions not their beliefs that need monitored. Their actions are public so they have no reasonable right to privacy as regards their activities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  28
  • Topic Count:  338
  • Topics Per Day:  0.05
  • Content Count:  15,673
  • Content Per Day:  2.46
  • Reputation:   8,494
  • Days Won:  39
  • Joined:  10/25/2006
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  02/27/1985

I, personally, will not sign it, on principle. While I have no love for what they do, I do feel they have the right to do it-freedom of religion.

Freedom of religion was never meant to include what they do. i think a little common sense is needed instead of thinking that everything some nut does in the name of religion is protected by the Constitution. We need to go back to the intent of the founders instead of letting the liblerals define what freedom of religion means for us. Getting rid of the nuts will in now way create a slippery slope.

no, freedom of religion, is just that, freedom of religion. it means we can worship what we want, theres also the right of free assembly. Freedom of religion is not "freedom to only those we choose" we ask the government to step in here, we might as well kiss our freedom of religion goodbye-this is just one more step towards taking it way. Look at the big picture here, they claim to be a church. Now, their actions are definetly not loving, but if the church steps into that, what stops them from going into churches that are loving from there? I mean what do you really expect the government to do? so what, they title them a hate group. Thats nothing, they will just say they are being persecuted for their cause, and continue on just as strong or stronger because of it. The next step, is to start making laws governing what they can, and cannot do, and arrest them for doing so. What then? this is the government we are talking about here-you give them a little power, and they will take a lot, it will just escalate, to any church that says anything against sin of any kind, will then be labeled a hate group and members arrested.

I urge you to think with your head, and not with your emotions. Bringing the government into this wont stop westboro-if anything it will just amplify their cause, anything the government does to them will be persecution and they will just be martyrs for their cause, and it will come back to bite us. The only way to effectively stop them, is combat evil with good-not retaliation. Its time we stop asking the government to fix our problems for us, and for us to fix it ourselves. The bikers, and others who show up to block them from protesting, thats a good thing-in fact it pretty much shut down their last protest, but has anyone ever thought to hand out Bibles to them? maybe stand outside their church and praying for them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,822
  • Content Per Day:  0.30
  • Reputation:   19
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/23/2007
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  11/16/1967

we live in countries were we are free to say what we want while their are others who live in countries were they don"t have the freedom like we do in our countries

.An American got in trouble for putting up a video discussing what he finds wrong with the philippines

On Monday, March 19th, the City of Cebu has reacted to the buzz. Sun-Star’s article “” said that City Councilor Sisinio Andales wanted Jimmy Sieczka declared “persona non grata” in the city. He will file a resolution before the City Council next week.

he is lucky he did not get black listed i also have to be care full as a foreigner i try not to rock the boat as i know if i do begin to question or do what this guy did i could be stopped from entering my wifes country

The Philippines now has a law that bans abductions carried out by government forces, a practice known as enforced disappearances.

Under the new law, anyone convicted of carrying out enforced disappearances can be sentenced to life in prison without parole. The law also prohibits the use of secret detention facilities, and bans the military from using a list of suspected communist insurgents to justify holding people indefinitely

This group knows it can say what it wants all due to living in a country that gives them this freedom i can not see how the government can stop this group by signing the petition will it stop this lot

has any church leader or pastor challenged this group ?

i do not want to step on no ones toes yet i know their are others in third world countries who have not got the freedom we have yet want the very same freedom we have in our countries

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
no, freedom of religion, is just that, freedom of religion.

By the way WE interpret it, today. That was not the original intent of the founders. The original intent was to protect Christian freedom from a state run church and in particular from persecution by the North American branch of the Church of England that existed in Virginia at the time the first amendment was ratified.

Freedom of religion was never meant to give quarter to people like Westboro. They are the very antithesis of what the first amendment stands for. To use the first amendment to protect the rights of people, who, by their very actions violate that ammendment is nothing short of ludicrous.

Freedom of religion is not "freedom to only those we choose" we ask the government to step in here, we might as well kiss our freedom of religion goodbye-this is just one more step towards taking it way.

No freedom we have is absolute. To argue that freedom of religion covers these actions by these people not only dehumanizes, but it diminishes the freedom itself.

Look at the big picture here, they claim to be a church. Now, their actions are definetly not loving, but if the church steps into that, what stops them from going into churches that are loving from there?

Please... The government doesn't need Westboro as a pretext for restricting the rest of us. They will do that anyway. We are called "haters" anytime we call out sin for what it is.

The only way to effectively stop them, is combat evil with good-not retaliation.

It's not retaliation. It is something that should have been done a long time ago. It is a good thing that they are at least singled out from the rest of us and labled for what they are. Most people, even those who are not Christians, are able to differentiate between real Churches and Westboro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  28
  • Topic Count:  338
  • Topics Per Day:  0.05
  • Content Count:  15,673
  • Content Per Day:  2.46
  • Reputation:   8,494
  • Days Won:  39
  • Joined:  10/25/2006
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  02/27/1985

shiloh, by the original intent. Yes, the vast majority of the founding fathers were christians, and it was to ensure their freedom-as well as all other religions. It was for the christians, but not only for the christians. Freedom of religion means all have the right to worship in their own way-period. It wasnt just for the christians, and if they were here today, to say otherwise would be contrary to what they very believe. It was a right made for them, but included everyone. I think they would agree with me.

and your right, were already called haters by others now, but not the government. first, why give the government any toe hold? especially seeing as what it leads to. And furthermore, if its only a "title" as you claim, then why does the government need to label them anything? we already know what they are, why would we need the government to tell us what they are? are we so bad that we need the government to tell us something? If its only a title, then we don't need it. If its more then that, then we dont want it, for reasons already said.

It is retaliation. For, us as to christians, to have the government call them a hate group, is childish, and its retaliation. Its like 1st grade again, "mommie, hes a meanie-head" time for us to put a helmet on, and pull out our Bibles, and show westboro the true meaning of love-not that we can play at their game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Servant
  • Followers:  25
  • Topic Count:  275
  • Topics Per Day:  0.05
  • Content Count:  5,208
  • Content Per Day:  1.00
  • Reputation:   1,893
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/02/2010
  • Status:  Offline

shiloh, by the original intent. Yes, the vast majority of the founding fathers were christians, and it was to ensure their freedom-as well as all other religions. It was for the christians, but not only for the christians. Freedom of religion means all have the right to worship in their own way-period. It wasnt just for the christians, and if they were here today, to say otherwise would be contrary to what they very believe. It was a right made for them, but included everyone. I think they would agree with me.

and your right, were already called haters by others now, but not the government. first, why give the government any toe hold? especially seeing as what it leads to. And furthermore, if its only a "title" as you claim, then why does the government need to label them anything? we already know what they are, why would we need the government to tell us what they are? are we so bad that we need the government to tell us something? If its only a title, then we don't need it. If its more then that, then we dont want it, for reasons already said.

It is retaliation. For, us as to christians, to have the government call them a hate group, is childish, and its retaliation. Its like 1st grade again, "mommie, hes a meanie-head" time for us to put a helmet on, and pull out our Bibles, and show westboro the true meaning of love-not that we can play at their game.

:thumbs_up:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
shiloh, by the original intent. Yes, the vast majority of the founding fathers were christians, and it was to ensure their freedom-as well as all other religions. It was for the christians, but not only for the christians. Freedom of religion means all have the right to worship in their own way-period. It wasnt just for the christians, and if they were here today, to say otherwise would be contrary to what they very believe. It was a right made for them, but included everyone. I think they would agree with me.

The problem is that what WBC is doing isn't worship. Picketing funerals and harrassing people isn't worship. I think that is where the confusion lies. We are not talking about their right to worship the way they want. They have crossed at line and their actions cannot be labeled, "worship.' Just because they are doing it in the name of their god, doesn't suddenly mean that their actions are protected religious worship. So using the first ammendment to defend their actions under the freedom of worship doesn't really hold up.

and your right, were already called haters by others now, but not the government. first, why give the government any toe hold? especially seeing as what it leads to. And furthermore, if its only a "title" as you claim, then why does the government need to label them anything? we already know what they are, why would we need the government to tell us what they are? are we so bad that we need the government to tell us something? If its only a title, then we don't need it. If its more then that, then we dont want it, for reasons already said.

By supporting the petition, we set ourselves apart from the WBC. We in effect telling the government and everyone else that we condemn their actions, that we are not gay haters (despite the claims of some), and that stands as a viable witness to the community.

It is retaliation. For, us as to christians, to have the government call them a hate group, is childish, and its retaliation. Its like 1st grade again, "mommie, hes a meanie-head" time for us to put a helmet on, and pull out our Bibles, and show westboro the true meaning of love-not that we can play at their game.

That is ridculous. It is not retaliation. We are not retaliating against anyone. We are simply agreeing with the government's accruate assessment of the WBC. So your attempt of belittlement isn't going to work. I would have hoped you could have come up with something a more intelligent line of argumentation than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...