Westboro Baptist Church

12-06-2012 10:43AM

^^
Intelligent lassie

Run_to_da_hills · 12-06-2012 11:11AM

Pushtrak wrote: »

I don't think so... This shows a bit of a failure to grasp the extremism of some of the religious in the states. Unless you are going to try and say any such people similar to westboro are also backed by the CIA. Are all these people sponsored by the CIA/US authorities?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGpws-4wqxg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9ntDyWVXrY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2agsAZcA3fU

Are Faux News sponsored by the CIA/US authorities?

You obviously don't seem top be able to grasp the difference. :rolleyes:

All those examples are confined within the privacy of a church while WBC's are all on public property.

Pushtrak · 12-06-2012 11:28AM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I wouldnt go so far as to say I'm an athiest but I have no time for organised religion, I'm also the last person you're going to find defending the Catholic church. However, what you have written here is untrue. People read whatever they want into these things and twist words for their own ends. Certain people may interpret things in certain ways but the bible does not tell people to act like this.

Read the bible. Seriously. You'll be rapidly able to call yourself an atheist when you do that.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

You obviously don't seem top be able to grasp the difference. :rolleyes:

All those examples are confined within the privacy of a church while WBC's are all on public property.

How about the tea party movement? They have similar attitudes and they aren't exactly confined to the privacy of a church.

Do you also think that pastor who wanted to burn the koran was sponsored by the CIA/US authorities to annoy muslims?

Ghost Buster · 12-06-2012 12:37PM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I wouldnt go so far as to say I'm an athiest but I have no time for organised religion, I'm also the last person you're going to find defending the Catholic church. However, what you have written here is untrue. People read whatever they want into these things and twist words for their own ends. Certain people may interpret things in certain ways but the bible does not tell people to act like this.

I beg to differ, much of The Bible especially the Old Testiment (By the same all powerful author) is one long incitement to hatred, smiteing, begatting, genocide etc etc and these folk are simply following its teachings.

Ellis Dee · 12-06-2012 12:43PM

Sonics2k wrote: »

Great bunch of lad's Complete bunch of arseholes

Don't know if they actually are arseholes, but they certainly are very obsessed with that particular orifice. I reckon Fred Phelps is the biggest closet case on the planet. Who else could be such a rabid homophobe?

:):rolleyes::rolleyes:

Biggins · 12-06-2012 12:44PM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I wouldnt go so far as to say I'm an athiest but I have no time for organised religion, I'm also the last person you're going to find defending the Catholic church. However, what you have written here is untrue. People read whatever they want into these things and twist words for their own ends. Certain people may interpret things in certain ways but the bible does not tell people to act like this.

http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/9977/rape2.jpg

12-06-2012 12:56PM

Talking about them, even if it's to give out about, is giving them precisely what they want - attention. The best thing to do is to give them none at all, just ignore them and hope they go away.

grindle · 12-06-2012 01:15PM

Biggins wrote: »

http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/9977/rape2.jpg

People who defend the Bible tend not to have read it.
When they have and they disagree with it, it's a poetic metaphor.
Pretty obvious the guy offering his women to the homosexual was a metaphor about offering Barry's Tea to a Lyon's drinker.

Father Damo · 12-06-2012 01:15PM

Fred Phelps is like a less camp version of Noel Furlong from Father Ted. He is clearly so flaming raging it is not even funny. Too bad Sacha Baron Cohens Bruno couldnrt get an interview with him.

I am still mystified as to how they earn a living, how they afford all these cross country flights. IIRC from the docu most of the kids are lawyers by trade. Nobody in their right mind would hire them to defend them in a case. No state is going to hire these people for defendants under its legal aid programme- god forbid government money going to a group that pickets army funerals. So who exactly are their clients, where the hell is the money coming from?

usernamegoes · 12-06-2012 01:23PM

I heard a radio interview with one of them recently, where he said that they believed in predestination, that is that god makes people do everything they do and there is nothing you can do. So god makes people gay and there is nothing you can do but you will still be punished.

So I didn't quite understand how this reconciles with their protests, if god is making them do it what's the point in telling them to repent, it won't happen unless god wants them to.

Gbear · 12-06-2012 01:26PM

Meh, they just talk ****e and say nasty things.
Ignore them and they'll go away.

Ultimately it's their life they're wasting on their crusade of bigotry and ignorance.

Jester252 · 12-06-2012 01:34PM

What can we do

Father Damo · 12-06-2012 01:37PM

Jester252 wrote: »

What can we do

I saw them jumping on a tricolour once.

I would love it, LOVE IT, if they tried that little stunt on O Connell Street on a Saturday night.

Crooked Jack · 12-06-2012 01:48PM

grindle wrote: »

People who defend the Bible tend not to have read it.
When they have and they disagree with it, it's a poetic metaphor.
Pretty obvious the guy offering his women to the homosexual was a metaphor about offering Barry's Tea to a Lyon's drinker.

Im not defending the bible, just saying that these WBC people are obviously reading into it what they want.
I will admit I havent read the whole thing, mainly because it's massive and doesnt hold that much interest for me, but from what I have read I do recall a lot of 'love thy neighbour' and 'turn the other cheek' craic (as well as the fire and brimstone) that these lads seem to be ignoring. My point is the problem here is (mostly) with the WBC, not the Bible itself.
Attempting to link this behaviour to all of christianity, as one poster did, is also unfair.

The attitude of some people on this highlights one of my biggest problems with athiesm, it is as militant and dogmatic as any religion. It has its books and doctrines that it adheres to slavishly as well and (some of) its practitioners are just as narrow and unbending in their outlook.
That attitude is precisely why I dont subscribe to any organised religion.
One thing everyone can agree on is that we didnt come from nothing. Everyone has their ideas but nobody knows for sure. Something had to be there initially. Was it God, an energy, a blip in the matrix? I dont know, but I'm open to all possibilities.

Pushtrak · 12-06-2012 01:55PM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Im not defending the bible, just saying that these WBC people are obviously reading into it what they want.

They're reading in to it what it says. That is why they are called "biblical literalists". They take it literally. I'm happy literalism isn't a common thing here and people have a modern interpretation on things, but this line doesn't fly.

DB21 · 12-06-2012 01:56PM

Father Damo wrote: »

I am still mystified as to how they earn a living, how they afford all these cross country flights. IIRC from the docu most of the kids are lawyers by trade. Nobody in their right mind would hire them to defend them in a case. No state is going to hire these people for defendants under its legal aid programme- god forbid government money going to a group that pickets army funerals. So who exactly are their clients, where the hell is the money coming from?

They sue the hell out of people who block their protests. That's how they raise their funds.

Ghost Buster · 12-06-2012 01:58PM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Im not defending the bible, just saying that these WBC people are obviously reading into it what they want.
I will admit I havent read the whole thing, mainly because it's massive and doesnt hold that much interest for me, but from what I have read I do recall a lot of 'love thy neighbour' and 'turn the other cheek' craic (as well as the fire and brimstone) that these lads seem to be ignoring. My point is the problem here is (mostly) with the WBC, not the Bible itself.
Attempting to link this behaviour to all of christianity, as one poster did, is also unfair.

The attitude of some people on this highlights one of my biggest problems with athiesm, it is as militant and dogmatic as any religion. It has its books and doctrines that it adheres to slavishly as well and (some of) its practitioners are just as narrow and unbending in their outlook.
That attitude is precisely why I dont subscribe to any organised religion.
One thing everyone can agree on is that we didnt come from nothing. Everyone has their ideas but nobody knows for sure. Something had to be there initially. Was it God, an energy, a blip in the matrix? I dont know, but I'm open to all possibilities.

Its not about reading anything into the bible, its simply about reading it which has bugger all to do with militant atheism unless militant atheism is about calling a spade a spade. Nice tangent you are off on!

Pushtrak · 12-06-2012 02:00PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church#Funding

WBC's travel expenses exceed $200,000 annually.[185] According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, Westboro is funded entirely by its congregation and accepts no outside donations.[186] The church has received money from lawsuits and legal fees.[186][187] For example, they sued the city of Topeka several times in the 1990s.[186] WBC received $16,500, and is pursuing another $100,000, in legal fees for a case won in court.[187] The WBC is considered a nonprofit organization by the federal government, and is therefore exempt from paying taxes.[188]

Their congregation obviously gives substantially. I'm surprised they refuse money from outside donations. Kind of goes to argue in a way it isn't just in it for the money as if they were they could be making a lot more.

Father Damo · 12-06-2012 02:15PM

Pushtrak wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church#Funding

Their congregation obviously gives substantially. I'm surprised they refuse money from outside donations. Kind of goes to argue in a way it isn't just in it for the money as if they were they could be making a lot more.

IIRC they only have 20 or 30 odd people, nearly all of them the children and nephews/ nieces of Phelps, and their children/ spouse.

In the local area these people would presumably be unemployable, and if they are self employed nobody would use them. There is only so much money you can make out of lawsuits (dont know about the US but in France and Britain judges sometimes rule what they view as nuisance lawsuits by awarding the claimant one pound or one euro, plus costs)- 200,000 in travel expenses alone surely cant be covered by this. Who the hell else is funding them?

Crooked Jack · 12-06-2012 02:50PM

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Its not about reading anything into the bible, its simply about reading it which has bugger all to do with militant atheism unless militant atheism is about calling a spade a spade. Nice tangent you are off on!

This is what I mean. This is the exact same attitude you get from staunchly religious people when you dare question their beliefs. You seem to have a lot more in common with them than you would like to admit.
The athiesm thing I wrote was a side note to an earlier poster who suggested if I read the bible fully I would become an athiest.
The main point I was making was that these WBC clowns seem to be picking bits out of it that suit their agenda (as a number of people on here are doing as well.) There is more to the book that fire and brimstone, particularly in the new testament, and I'm merely voicing my opposition to people here making sweeping generalisations about it, as I would on any issue.

Capt'n Midnight · 12-06-2012 02:55PM

The King of Moo wrote: »

They are a vile bunch, but I do approve of their strong anti-smoking stance.

Meanwhile the Catholic Church's position

grindle · 12-06-2012 02:59PM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

This is what I mean. This is the exact same attitude you get from staunchly religious people when you dare question their beliefs. You seem to have a lot more in common with them than you would like to admit.

If someone says "Gays are inherently evil.", and someone else says "No they're not.", that doesn't make both arguments equal.

People who go "Oh, for fuck's sake, not another staunch pro-gay, they're just as bad as the homophobic bigots!" are as stupid as they sound.

Can you see the parallels with your own reasoning?

Capt'n Midnight · 12-06-2012 03:02PM

Father Damo wrote: »

France and Britain judges sometimes rule what they view as nuisance lawsuits by awarding the claimant one pound or one euro, plus costs)

It's a pity RTE didn't bankrupt Beverly Cooper Flynn :mad:

She sued RTE and technically won the case.

BUT, didn't get compensation or costs.

http://www.simonmcaleese.com/asp/printf.asp?RecordId=215

On the 3 March 2001, the jury delivered its judgment. The jury firstly found that there was insufficient evidence that Cooper-Flynn had induced Howard to evade tax.
...
Asked in view of their decision in relation to the “Howard claim” to assess damage to the material reputation of Cooper-Flynn, they replied “none” on the issue paper.
...
"the tort of defamation protects those whose reputations have been unlawfully injured. It affords little or no protection to those who have, or deserve to have, no reputation deserving of legal protection”.

MadsL · 12-06-2012 03:12PM

retalivity wrote: »

they also hate ireland
http://www.godhatestheworld.com/ireland/index.html
nice people

You know that is a spoof site, right?

Ghost Buster · 12-06-2012 03:21PM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

This is what I mean. This is the exact same attitude you get from staunchly religious people when you dare question their beliefs. You seem to have a lot more in common with them than you would like to admit.
The athiesm thing I wrote was a side note to an earlier poster who suggested if I read the bible fully I would become an athiest.
The main point I was making was that these WBC clowns seem to be picking bits out of it that suit their agenda (as a number of people on here are doing as well.) There is more to the book that fire and brimstone, particularly in the new testament, and I'm merely voicing my opposition to people here making sweeping generalisations about it, as I would on any issue.

I have not a clue what point you are making. I have a lot in common with who because of what

It is very very simple. The bible says mean , vile stuff in black and white which The Phelps take at face value rather than the usual head in the sand attitude of all other Christians, you know the one -
"Nice stuff = face value"
"Nasty Stuff= makes me uncomfortable so i shall interpret it as a parable/metaphor"

Crooked Jack · 12-06-2012 03:32PM

grindle wrote: »

If someone says "Gays are inherently evil.", and someone else says "No they're not.", that doesn't make both arguments equal.

People who go "Oh, for fuck's sake, not another staunch pro-gay, they're just as bad as the homophobic bigots!" are as stupid as they sound.

Can you see the parallels with your own reasoning?

That's a ridiculous comparison. For a start I havent even referred to the content of either belief, merely compared the narrow mindedness with which they both hold their respective beliefs and the aggressive attitude with which they pounce on anyone who dares question them.

Crooked Jack · 12-06-2012 03:34PM

Ghost Buster wrote: »

I have not a clue what point you are making. I have a lot in common with who because of what
It is very very simple. The bible says mean , vile stuff in black and white which The Phelps take at face value rather than the usual head in the sand attitude of all other Christians, you know the one -
"Nice stuff = face value"
"Nasty Stuff= makes me uncomfortable so i shall interpret it as a parable/metaphor"

Yes, but it also says some very reasonable stuff in black and white that both they and you seem keen to ignore as it suits your agenda

Ellis Dee · 12-06-2012 03:39PM

Several posters have wondered where Phelps and his gang get their money. One way is that they are mighty quick to sue anyone who they believe has defamed them. And I suppose there are plenty of rabid homophobes willing to put their nickels and dimes where their mouth is. Many a mickle makes a muckle, they say in Lancashire.:eek:

I first became aware of their existence in 2000, when Tarja Halonen was elected Finland's first woman President. A lawyer by training, she had some years earlier done some legal work for an organisation that promoted equal rights for sexual minorities. That was enough in their eyes to brand her a lesbian (which she almost certainly isn't, and I have met her personally, but so what if she were anyway?). WBC announced that they were sending a delegation to Helsinki to "burn Finland's filthy fag flag" outside the Presidential Palace.:D

They also said they had applied for 25 visas for Finland (which Americans don't need:rolleyes:) and declared that they would protest to the UN if the visas were refused. Thus they do a lot more talking the talk than walking the walk, and most of their travelling around the USA is done in pickup trucks.;)

A Helsinki radio station went for the bait and interviewed Fred Phelps by phone. Among other things, he boasted that one of his daughters had a big role in executing prisoners in a Kansas prison. Without doubt, a total whack job.:rolleyes:

As it happens, it is not, I believe, illegal to burn a Finnish flag, but it would not be the smartest thing to do in a country with so much genuine patriotism and national pride.

For a while I was looking forward to the spectacle of Phelps and his boys burning the flag outside the palace and a couple of policemen rushing --- as fast as a snail in low gear -- to the scene to prevent some irate grannies from kicking the shit out of those nutters.

BTW, I have a link to a URL about their "burning Finland's filthy fag flag", but I'll be banned for ever and one day if I post it here. PM me if you'd like to see it.:cool:

Ghost Buster · 12-06-2012 03:48PM

Ghost Buster wrote: »

I have not a clue what point you are making. I have a lot in common with who because of what
It is very very simple. The bible says mean , vile stuff in black and white which The Phelps take at face value rather than the usual head in the sand attitude of all other Christians, you know the one -
"Nice stuff = face value"
"Nasty Stuff= makes me uncomfortable so i shall interpret it as a parable/metaphor"

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Yes, but it also says some very reasonable stuff in black and white that both they and you seem keen to ignore as it suits your agenda

I am not ignoring the reasonable stuff or as i called it 'The Nice Stuff". To demonstrate this i have bolded it in a previous post. Look up there ^^^^^
I am simple saying that The Phelps have a biblical precedence for their view point.

Oh and BTW , What is my agenda?????

Pushtrak · 12-06-2012 04:12PM

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Oh and BTW , What is my agenda?????

If it is to be said I'm of the same agenda then I guess it might be to get people to read the bible. Us and our agenda, ne'er do well rapscallions.

Westboro Baptist Church

Comments