Westboro Baptist Church

[Guest shiloh357]

I can see Shiloh's point about the original intent of giving us freedom of religion in the Bill of Rights, but if we really take it as it meant from the start, the federal government still has no right to interfere with Westboro Baptist Church.

The fed gv't. cannot dictate their worship, but picketing funerals isn't worship. Just because someone tries to cloak it is religion doesn't grant it some kind of immunity on the grounds of freedom of religion.

A little commonsense goes a long way.

[The_Patriot21]

Its a slippery slope, we dont want to go down. And how is it not? Instead of "mommy hes a meanie head" its "hey mr government theyre haters" its still the same thing. And im sorry, but if we need the government to seperate us from tbem-then were in worse trouble then I thought. Christ is who sets me apart-not the government nor any petition. And do you think Jesus would sign some sillypetition labeling this a "hate group" or do you think He would instead find some way to minister to them? Were spending to much time building animosity towards this group-which is the natural, human, response, and not enough time are battle isnt against them or antthing else of this world.theyre people they need Jesus to, not encouragement which is all a government label will do.

[Leonard]

I won't sign because 1. It is indeed a 'slippery slope!' 2. There are already more than enough signatures, 3. I'd have to create an account with a White House which is currently occupied by 'lightening from heaven.....' I don't even want THIS President to know I exist! Better I just pray for his salvation.

These demon-possessed, "inbredees" of Westboro 'be blind leaders of the blind. Let them alone'

[Guest shiloh357]

Its a slippery slope, we dont want to go down.

Nonsense. if the government wants to come after us, they don't need the WBC as a pretext to do it. They have plenty of reasons already and since I don't hear anyone in the media or elsewhere comparing us to WBC. The government already places huge restrictions on the church and what we can do in public and they don't need WBC to do it. So to pretend that calling the WBC a hate group is going to set something in motion against us is just dumb. They already have begun to do that. Many homosexual radical groups already see us as haters.

And how is it not? Instead of "mommy hes a meanie head" its "hey mr government theyre haters" its still the same thing. And im sorry, but if we need the government to seperate us from tbem-then were in worse trouble then I thought.

It's not a case of needing the government to separate us from them. It is a matter of us demonstrating our separation form them. I don't mind doing anything. spiritually or practically that I can to show the world that there is absolutely NO point of congruity, no point of common reference beetween me and the WBC.

Christ is who sets me apart-not the government nor any petition.

Spiritually, yes. But that is beside the point. The last thing we need is to appear to be defending their right to go out and promote hate. This is not about freedom of religion or worship at all. What they are doing has nothing to do with religion and is not covered under religious expression or worship.

And do you think Jesus would sign some silly petition labeling this a "hate group" or do you think He would instead find some way to minister to them?

I am not gong to get into a hypothetical argument about whether Jesus would sign the petition or not, as I don't know if He would (and neither do you). I, however, don't see anything about Jesus' teaching that would be in contradiction to signing it. In fact, I don't see why we cannot sign the petition and still try to minister to the WBC. I don't see that signing the petitition and ministry to them are mutually exclusive concepts.

Were spending to much time building animosity towards this group-which is the natural, human, response, and not enough time are battle isnt against them or antthing else of this world.theyre people they need Jesus to, not encouragement which is all a government label will do.

We are not building animosity toward them at all. They built the animosity through their hate. This petition should have been made a long time ago. I am for anything that will marginalize the WBC and I am for any further action or legislation that would limit their ability to go out and harrass other people.

I interpret the constitution in a far narrow way that is more in line with the intent of the founders and not in the more liberal broad method of interpretation that others do today. The more I have learned about the founders of this country, the more I find that we have really perverted the Constitution and have handled it in a way that they never dreamed we would.

[The_Patriot21]

well, Ive already described the slippery slope, so I wont argue that anymore. I will say, however, that if we need this "petition" to seperate us from this group-then we, as a church, have failed. period. We have failed. It should be Christ that sets us apart-both spiritually and physically, not some petition. And its not beside the point it is the point. It should be the point of everything we do. If it is not, then we have failed.

And how is it not forming animosity toward them? yes, they have been building animosity toward us for a long time, but two wrongs do not make a right.

And third, as I have explained, a "petition" will not marginalize them. They will just see such a petition as encouragement-that they are in the right. Furthermore, if the government assigns them the label, it will again, just encourage them to do more. So by doing this, we are being creating animosity toward them, opening the door for the government to poke their noses in where it doesnt belong, and for what? for nothing, it will just encourage their cause. So we have lots to lose, and absolutly nothing to gain.

As for "hypothetical" questions, that really should be our focus. We are Christians, that means followers of Christ-focusing on What Jesus would do Should be our Primary focus on everything. Including this petition.

[Steve_S]

I can see Shiloh's point about the original intent of giving us freedom of religion in the Bill of Rights, but if we really take it as it meant from the start, the federal government still has no right to interfere with Westboro Baptist Church.

The fed gv't. cannot dictate their worship, but picketing funerals isn't worship. Just because someone tries to cloak it is religion doesn't grant it some kind of immunity on the grounds of freedom of religion.

A little commonsense goes a long way.

I get what you are saying Shiloh, but the federal government was never granted authority to interfere with something like this, so the power to do so is reserved to the state and the people. The state of Kansas should be able to shut them down if they wish, but the federal government has no authority.

This is correct. This is one of the problems we have as a nation right now. Everybody wants to use the government to shut down people they don't like, but when the machine is turned against them and their beliefs its an outrage. The simple fact of the matter is that people don't like what they say so they want them silenced by power. I detest what these people stand for and I detest what they say, but begging the US government to shut them up is like asking a wolf to help you get rid of a coyote.

[MorningGlory]

I can see Shiloh's point about the original intent of giving us freedom of religion in the Bill of Rights, but if we really take it as it meant from the start, the federal government still has no right to interfere with Westboro Baptist Church.

The fed gv't. cannot dictate their worship, but picketing funerals isn't worship. Just because someone tries to cloak it is religion doesn't grant it some kind of immunity on the grounds of freedom of religion.

A little commonsense goes a long way.

I get what you are saying Shiloh, but the federal government was never granted authority to interfere with something like this, so the power to do so is reserved to the state and the people. The state of Kansas should be able to shut them down if they wish, but the federal government has no authority.

This is correct. This is one of the problems we have as a nation right now. Everybody wants to use the government to shut down people they don't like, but when the machine is turned against them and their beliefs its an outrage. The simple fact of the matter is that people don't like what they say so they want them silenced by power. I detest what these people stand for and I detest what they say, but begging the US government to shut them up is like asking a wolf to help you get rid of a coyote.

There is no attempt being made to shut them down or silence them. A designation as a 'hate group' simply categorizes them as what they are; you'll note that the KKK, the Black Panthers, and the Nation of islam are still in business. The WBC is NOT a church, they are a group of possessed lunatics that spew hatred and inflame the public conscience.

[Guest shiloh357]

I can see Shiloh's point about the original intent of giving us freedom of religion in the Bill of Rights, but if we really take it as it meant from the start, the federal government still has no right to interfere with Westboro Baptist Church.

The fed gv't. cannot dictate their worship, but picketing funerals isn't worship. Just because someone tries to cloak it is religion doesn't grant it some kind of immunity on the grounds of freedom of religion.

A little commonsense goes a long way.

I get what you are saying Shiloh, but the federal government was never granted authority to interfere with something like this, so the power to do so is reserved to the state and the people. The state of Kansas should be able to shut them down if they wish, but the federal government has no authority.

This is correct. This is one of the problems we have as a nation right now. Everybody wants to use the government to shut down people they don't like, but when the machine is turned against them and their beliefs its an outrage. The simple fact of the matter is that people don't like what they say so they want them silenced by power. I detest what these people stand for and I detest what they say, but begging the US government to shut them up is like asking a wolf to help you get rid of a coyote.

Who said anything about shutting them down??? How about reading what is actually said instead of misrepresenting my position and trying to refute arguments I have not raised??? Think you can manage that?

I said nothing about shutting them down. However, I do not believe that the kind of harrassment they inflict on others is covered under the Constitution is protected free speech. They can sit in their church building and blather on about how God hates gays, all they want. But what they are doing is NOT religious speech, and it is not protected free speech and you really have to abandon good sense in order to argue that it is. Harrassment is not Constitutionally protected speech or activity by any stretch of the imagination. They spew their hate from their own pulpits if they wish. That IS their protected right. But taking that hatred into the public arena and inflicting it on others and using it as a tool of harrassment as they do is not protected.

The government cannot regulate what they believe or say, but their protests are harassment and that falls under the category of conduct and conduct CAN be regulated. And it should be.

[Steve_S]

I can see Shiloh's point about the original intent of giving us freedom of religion in the Bill of Rights, but if we really take it as it meant from the start, the federal government still has no right to interfere with Westboro Baptist Church.

The fed gv't. cannot dictate their worship, but picketing funerals isn't worship. Just because someone tries to cloak it is religion doesn't grant it some kind of immunity on the grounds of freedom of religion.

A little commonsense goes a long way.

I get what you are saying Shiloh, but the federal government was never granted authority to interfere with something like this, so the power to do so is reserved to the state and the people. The state of Kansas should be able to shut them down if they wish, but the federal government has no authority.

This is correct. This is one of the problems we have as a nation right now. Everybody wants to use the government to shut down people they don't like, but when the machine is turned against them and their beliefs its an outrage. The simple fact of the matter is that people don't like what they say so they want them silenced by power. I detest what these people stand for and I detest what they say, but begging the US government to shut them up is like asking a wolf to help you get rid of a coyote.

Who said anything about shutting them down??? How about reading what is actually said instead of misrepresenting my position and trying to refute arguments I have not raised??? Think you can manage that?

I said nothing about shutting them down. However, I do not believe that the kind of harrassment they inflict on others is covered under the Constitution is protected free speech. They can sit in their church building and blather on about how God hates gays, all they want. But what they are doing is NOT religious speech, and it is not protected free speech and you really have to abandon good sense in order to argue that it is. Harrassment is not Constitutionally protected speech or activity by any stretch of the imagination. They spew their hate from their own pulpits if they wish. That IS their protected right. But taking that hatred into the public arena and inflicting it on others and using it as a tool of harrassment as they do is not protected.

The government cannot regulate what they believe or say, but their protests are harassment and that falls under the category of conduct and conduct CAN be regulated. And it should be.

Do you think it should be illegal to picket abortion clinics? Using your line of reasoning it's harassment to picket people you disagree with and to do so in a disparaging fashion.

[The_Patriot21]

very good point steve.