Tag Archives: United States

Westboro Babtist Church? Even Crazy People have Rights!

Posted on by
1

After the bombing of the Boston Marathon I became aware of the Westboro Baptist

Even Crazy people have the right to FREE SPEECH.

Even Crazy people have the right to FREE SPEECH.

Church, in Topeka Kansas, which is not, as far as I have read, connected to any real church, Baptist or otherwise.

The church was started in, or around, 1955, and probably began spewing it’s hate and ignorance soon after.  The group seems to be under the spittle drenched command of a Fred Phelps who’s message of “GOD hates FAGS” shows a really poor Christian message and a certain amount of “poor white trash” intellect.  You can see them at their  website www.godhatesfags.com.  It is kind of like going to the ZOO and watching the animals sniff each others buts.  So who are they, and what is their message?

Who they are seems to be the family of this Fred Phelps and may only be about 50 people strange.  In that way they are insignificant.  Their message of hate is where they become important.  Yes they have a right to free speech, and yes their speech says a lot about them..  Lets look at some of it..  “GOD hates FAGS”.  On the face of it you might think that is just a statement of fact….

So lets look at the words…  Take GOD…  You might assume that they are talking about a specific GOD, as in “The One True God” but, since different religions have different Gods you might wonder of they are talking about Set, Zeus, or Jehovah.  I am not sure at this point…  because what do they mean by “hates”?  Is this “hates” as in they displease him, or upsets him, or are they talking about a real hate here where he wants to rub therm out of existence?  To me it seems they are making “judgements” of their own.  Are they not worried that their God might get upset that they are taking one of his rights, as in “judge not lest ye be judged”?  It is obvious that they are NOT talking about a Loving God who allows “free will” in order to let humans decide which direction they will follow and wants people to do what is RIGHT.  Personally I would not see myself lining up behind their god.

Then, of course, they use the term “FAG”…  Which is a provocation, as in “provocative speech and gesture”, which would tend to indicate a limited vocabulary..  I might not be one of the sharpest tools in the toolbox but, at least I can use words, other than slang, to get my message across.  For example, I might have said “JAHOVAH DISAPPROVES OF HOMOSEXUALS“…  In reality I would only go as far as to say that he does not approve of Homosexuals, Gays or Same Sex for you people over there on the left.

My belief, and what I have been taught, is that a persons religious values and beliefs are personal.  While it is perfectly with in each persons rights, both religious and civil, to act as Witnesses  for their beliefs it is beyond their rights, Christian wise, to make hatred laden judgements against people who do not share their beliefs.  If you do not like Gays it is within your rights to not associate with them, it is NOT within your rights to usurp the judgement of Jehovah, that is his right to make these Judgements.

Now, lets get to their message about Thank God for” the bombs, or the shooters, or whatever…  If any God were to do what the Westboro Baptist Church had said and used indiscriminate mass murder to get his message across this would not be a God of love but, one of HATE and so not worth worshiping….  These people believe that God, whichever one they mean, is using these people, bombers or shooters, to punish the United States because a portion of out population wants to let Homosexuals/Gays/Same Sex marry.  This is stupid.  Not everyone agrees that the Institution of Marriage includes two people of the same sex.  It has been said that our “Freedom of Religion” can also be construed as our “Freedom From Religion” and that the Untied States has separation of church and state so that we will not have the kind of religious law that the first settlers came over here to get away from.  Our law are supposed to be about what is good for Society and NOT about the Church…  Do some of our law fit under both categories?  Yes.  If the founding fathers had wanted to make Religious law they might have codified the “10 Commandments” rather than the “Bill of Rights”.

If Jehovah had wanted use these killers to make a clear statement about HIS hatred wouldn’t he have used them at a “Gay Pride Day” event?  Why would he attack athletes?

Wouldn’t the death of our soldiers overseas more likely say that Muslims are evil rather  than that the country that uses the motto “In God We Trust” is evil?

My point is simple…  The God that the Westboro Babtist Church glorifies is a god of hate, and not one of Love.  For those of you who do not believe in any gods, it is simple, they are just a bunch of lunatics, for those who do believe in a GOD you can make up your own mind about these people..

I can’t really imagine a world, such as ours, that came into existence by just chance, so I would prefer to believe in one who either Loves us, or doesn’t care but, I would NOT like to believe in one who preaches HATE…  so I believe that these people, who seem to indicate that indiscriminate murder is an act of god are crazy and that brings me to the main thrust of my article……  Even crazy people of “Freedom of Speech”.

Thanks

That Joe Guy.

Related articles

Gay Marriage, is it normal?

Posted on by
1

Marriage March 2013

Marriage March 2013 (Photo credit: American Life League)

No..  For thousands of years marriage had been defined as between a man and a woman…  and sexual conduct between person’s of the same sex was viewed as a “perversion” with practitioners of same being considered “perverts”.

Most state laws, even those not related to marriage, are based on “common law” which is a sort of unwritten law.  These unwritten laws were adopted over the years as a way to keep order in a society.  While many of these laws would fall in line with the “10 Commandments” the reason had more to do with the keeping of order, rather than a religious proscription..  This is why many none Christian countries had laws similar to those in Christian countries, as society understood that certain acts would conflict with the common good, and order, of a properly working society.  Murder, robbery, rape, theft, and things such as libel were know to creat disorder and were therefore prohibited.  The family, being important to the structure of society, was proscribed as being between a man and a woman, with added prohibitions against such things as being married to more than one spouse, marriage to certain blood relatives, and being married to a spouse under a certain age.  As for the last two the degree of prohibition varied by area.

In the United States there are a number of law that prohibit the practice of sodomy, which would seem to invalidate homosexual marriage, as well as incest, which had resulted in that prohibition.

The United States Supreme Court seems to be about to decide if the marriage of homosexuals in a constitutional right, or not.  Not being a constitutional scholar I don’t see the connection but, I can see the possibility of them striking down the bans against the marriage of homosexuals, which leads me to wonder how long it will be before they also strike down the other prohibitions.

A lot of the conversation has to do with what people think about homosexuals,  Are they really a perversion that society must be protected against?  I don’t know though I would have to go with the idea that they are not the norm, and to allow them to marry would help to diminish the concept, and purpose, of marriage.

I am reminded of an old episode of the TV show  ”West Wing” where several White House staffer were holding a discussion with several mid range military offices on what the President stance on this subject of ”Gays” in the military would be. At one point one of the staffers, makes that statement that “the President, as Commander n Chief of the Armed Forces can say that they can stay, and that is “it”".  The Military staffer points out that the Uniform Code of Military Justice still prohibits sodomy and that since that is a law passed by congress it doesn’t really matter what the President says, it is still illegal conduct.  The UCMJ also prohibits adultery.

Could the Supreme Court decide in favor of homosexual/Gay marriage?  Yes, it is possible.  What the constitution says is often a reflection of the Justices views and might have little to do with what the Constitution says.  Look at Justice  Sotomayor who made the statement during her confirmation hearings, which she later took back, that she would bring her “hispanic viewpoint” to the Supreme Court.  This is a sure indicator that she considers her viewpoint to be more important than what the Constitution actually says…  and she has voted with the Liberal block ever since…  All the Justices do is make the Constitution say what they want it to.  So the question is : are there enough Justices on the Supreme Court who understand that society, and the institution of marriage, must have a stable framework, or are there enough Justices who feel that marriage is just another legally recognized relationship that can be molded to fit their view?

We will just have to find out.

Thanks,

That Joe Guy.

Related articles

Another Myth Disspelled? “To Serve and To Protect”?

Posted on by
1

One of the many things that the Angeles Police Department is  famous for is the phrase “To Serve and Protect“.  It was selected as a motto by the LAPD Academy in 1955 and has been used by many Police Departments since then….

So maybe the Emeryville Police Department should get their own motto.  They could use this one “To Force and Intimidate”.

Thanks,

That Joe Guy.

Related articles

Just an observation…

Posted on by
Reply

Official photographic portrait of US President...

Official photographic portrait of US President Barack Obama (born 4 August 1961; assumed office 20 January 2009) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I see that there is a new flap over who President Obama had picked for the presidential inauguration… It seems that his first choice, the Rev. Louie Giglio, has withdraw, very soon after he was picked..  Why you might ask?  Well it seems that, for some odd reason that may have something to do with the Bible, he thinks, or thought, that homosexuality was a SIN.

Is homosexuality a SIN?  It might be..  there have been more knowledgeable people than I who have said yes, or no.  Each groups seems to find some portion of the scriptures that seems to support their theory…

So I am going to look at this in another light..  People get their values from the Bible.  I have always been told that these values were personal values and that tolerance means that I should not try to force them onto others.

Our government, the United States of America, is set up so that our laws are, yes, based on what the personal values of the majority are.  They were not setup as supplemental material to the 10 commandments, or an enforcement of Biblical views.  If that were true we would still be closing stores on Sunday, would know what days to not eat certain meats, or still be stoning people for heresy.

What we do have is need to pass laws for the common good, for the protection of the weak, and yes, to codify certain standards that society has accepted through the ages, and yes, through the ages Marriage has been accepted as the union of one woman and one man.  Utah was told this when they wanted to become a state, which turned out to be convenient for Utah as, it was about this time that the leader of the Later Day Saints go a new message from on high that polygamy was indeed wrong, and so Utah was allowed to join the Union.

There are laws pass against thing like, murder, rape, theft, and others, that have less to do with the Bible then a need for a stable society.  Some law, based strictly on Biblical views have either been struck down, or just left unused.  Take the laws on sodomy.  When was the last time you hear of anyone getting charged with sodomy, or bring up the idea that homosexual couple would be in violation of these laws.  Some years ago, you might remember the T.V. show “West Wing” about the White House.  A couple of the junior staffer were to meet with military representatives to discus gays in the military.  When the military people pointed out that the president wasn’t really serious about this, as he had sent junior staffers, the staffers replied that as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces if the President said it was alright for Gays to be in the military then it was the way it was.  The Military people pointed out that the Uniformed Code of Military Justice outlawed Sodomy, and that since the UCMJ was in fact a law passed by congress THAT is what would have to be changed before gays would be allowed in the military.

So, where are we then…  Some of the rules laid down in the Bible, now we are talking about the Christian Bible, have fallen by the wayside as Society changes.  One of the few consistent views had been the make up of the family being headed by one man and one woman.  If that is to change, then maybe we should take another look at where society gets it’s values..  Maybe, once homosexual marriages are widely accepted and the taboo against that is broken we might want to look and see if the taboo against incest still stands.  For some people the idea of a brother and sister getting married might not be as extreme as two men, or two women.

Final thought..  if an anti-gay preacher is unacceptable, then maybe we might look at having another type of priest do the benediction..  Maybe a Native American Sharman, or a Taoist Monk, or even a, wait for this…

VooDoo Priest.

Thanks,

That Joe Guy.

 

 

Related articles

Our Rights, and what are they?

Posted on by
Reply

First Floor at the Statute of John Marshall, q...

First Floor at the Statute of John Marshall, quotation from Marbury v. Madison (written by Marshall) engraved into the wall. United States Supreme Court Building. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I think I have been pretty consistent about our right to “bear arms“.

I refute that our rights are limited to what people, or some of them, think we “need” to have.  The “Bill of Rights” says noting about these right being applied “only in time of need” but says, our right, what our rights are…  and they are not based on current need.

Who would be the one to say which rights we “NEED”?  Nobody.  Our rights are what they are, and this is not based on someone thoughts about what we need.  That includes rights other than the right to “bear arms”.

Most recently, in just the last couple of days, I have started to hear people say that our founding fathers did not intend us to have the kind of weapons that are available..  They rationalized that since the founding father did not know about modern weapons the could not have intended us to have the rights to them…

To this I have several things to say.  First, they did intend that we have a militia, which is basically a citizen army, which means we would have to be able to obtain weapons that could be used by the Military.  At one point in time the Supreme Court upheld the laws against short barreled weapons, say a shotgun that had the barrel cut down, with the reasoning that by cutting down the barrel it would render that same shotgun useable by a military and thus it was not in keeping with use by a Militia.

The second thing this persons statement brings to mind is that the founding fathers also did not envision T.V., Telephones, Telegraph, Electric typewriters, computers, the Internet and a whole bunch of things that have been invented since then..  Does this mean that we only have rights in relation to things they knew about?  Would our free speech NOT include the Internet?

Over the years we have gotten these answers from the Supreme Court each time they have adapted their ruling to changes in technology.  The rights against unreasonable search have been applied to things like our mail, the phone,and to some degree our vehicles.  The courts have applied the concepts to things that our founding fathers probably did not see coming.  What if they had said that there was no need for privacy rights to cover a wire going out of your house, and so anybody could tap your phone without a warrant?  They did not do this, as they reasoned that there were situations where a person had a certain “expectation of privacy” in which case a warrant was needed.

The “Bill of Right” says what they are, and the Supreme Court interprets what the “Bill of Rights” says…  Recent decisions by the court have dismantled some of the most repressive firearms law in the country.  Law that violated, or infringed on, our right to bear arms.

So, to those of you who feel that we, the law abiding citizen, have not rights to bear arms you would have to change the constitution so that we only have the rights that YOU think we should have…

On the other hand you should keep in mind that idea that we got the present constitution, and government, when they decided that changes must be made to the “Articles of Confederation” that formed the framework of our first national government.  They were just supposed to make changes to it.  Instead that gave us a completely different organization.

 

Related articles