New Law Bans Demonstrations at Funerals

Then how do you say that the people should not be allowed to speak freely on the floor of teh congress? You can't have it both ways. If "free speech" is how you interpret it, then you have no basis for your above assertion "the congress has been granted authority by the constitution to dictate the appropriate decorum that goes on within those walls. To the best of my knowledge no one from Westboro is in congress. As a reminder, the floor of congress is not a public sidewalk.[/quote]

The first amendment does not specify "public sidewalk." You made that up. In preventing me from speaking on teh floor of the congress, they have by your definition made a law restricting my right to free speech.

And you are fine with that .

I am not sure what documents you are defending. The First Amendment has been routinely ruled to be satisfied by laws such as these. You seem typical of many who have flexible interpretations, so long as they fit your predetermined outcome. I reject that view.

 

Right you are Pastor Larry, I have came to the same conclusion.

 

reverend Phelps and his crew have absolutely no business interrupting the funerals of our military men and women who are killed defending our freedoms. While they have freedom that freedom should not include protesting at funerals.
Faithgirl

 

When you become a congressman then you can say whatever you want on the floor of congress. As a member of the public you should have the freedom to speak in public areas.

The Holy Bible and the Constitution.

Is your foundation for the law of life on the Bible or the men who interpret the Bible. Is your foundation for the law of U.S. civil gov't on the Constitution or the men who interpret the Constitution?

I don't understand what you are saying here. I don't have a flexible interpretation the words say what they say. What was my predetermined outcome and when do you believe I predetermined it?

 

You've concluded that I have a flexible interpretation?

 

I think the presence of Fred Phelps and his family church at the funerals of soldiers has done more to completely discredit he and his message more than any other ridiculously stupid thing he has done. Unfortunately, his identity as a Baptist has probably done at least as much damage to that name. People don't know that we're not the same.

It would be my guess that there will be a challenge to the constitutionality of this particular law in short order, perhaps by the Phelps family. I wouldn't count on its being around for a long time.

 

Right your are Faithgirl46, if Westboro had a message to state they could do it in a less obtrusive way than what they are doing now. What started out on street corners and outside other Churches was not outrageous enough and now they take their conduct at funeral processions. These people are trouble makers and if they do not get the desired results from protesting at funerals they will go to further extremes.

 

The result of Westboro's protest causing a riot.

Looks like Westboro had a very sucessful day, they achieved what they wanted.
Spreading more hate and discontent.

 

This link was posted and discussed previously in this thread.

If Westboro folks are peacefully assembling and using words to convey a message and those outside of the van are using violence to respond to that message, are you seriously going to hold Westboro responsible for the violent tendencies and actions of others? Do you seriously believe that a court should?

 

Westboro is fully aware of of the results of what their disgusting presence does, they have had enough experience at it. When they cause a crowd to riot they have achieved their purpose. If they truly wanted to spread God's message they could do it without incident. These people go where ever they are not invited
Jesus would not go where He was not invited and they fail at following His example.

 

What are your proof texts that demonstrate that Jesus went only into places where He was invited?

 

So you are not in favor of the first amendment as you claim. You recognize the right of Congress to limit free speech to certain areas.

The Bible is not at issue here and does not need your defending. The Constitution is not on your side on this one.

The Bible is meaningful only as it is interpreted.

The Constitution is interpreted and that is the final word until Congress or the courts overrule it. This is basic civics. You don’t get to interpret the constitution for yourself.

Your predetermined outcome was to protect the speech of those like Fred Phelps so you claim he has a first amendment right to say whatever he wants wherever he wants. You even specified a tax payer provided location. You fail to recognize that your view has already been ruled on.

It is furthermore unconscionable that as a Christian (I suppose you would claim that) would defend the speech of Fred Phelps. There is a higher governance than the constitution. That calls for us to condemn in no uncertain language the tactics of such godless people. There is no justification for it, even under the first amendment.

 

In Mark 6: 11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them.

Luke 4:29, 30
And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong.
30 But he passing through the midst of them went his way,

Even though Jesus had the power to stand his ground he knew his time had not come.

In Luke 5:29 Jesus sits at the table with sinners, Jesus certainly did not barge and command to be recieved.

Too bad Westboro does not choose to take a cue from the examples of Christ.They come in with condemnation instead of offering the way of salvation. The problem with Westboro is they are a self-righteous people and should be more concerned about being in the righteousness of Christ and should concern themselves with fullfilling the Great Commission as Christ would want them to and let Jesus do the judging.

 

As this thread is now on page 10, the thread closing is being issued - this thread will be closed no sooner than 10:30 p.m. ET by one of the Moderators.

Lady Eagle

 

Yes I do. They can dictate their behavior within their building, they even have the Constitutional authority to only allow members of congress into the capital building. The same way police officers have the authority to allow only police officers into a police station. However, they can make no law abridging the freedom of speech of a citizen in a public venue. They can not tell a citizen to get off the sidewalk because they are offending people.

Well, if it is all the same to you, I'll keep defending it and thanks for your encouragement pastor.

I maintain that it is. You can talk your way out of "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech". I'm going to accept it for what it says.

The Bible is meaningful as it is written. Jesus Christ said "it is written..., it is written..." not "it is interpreted, it is interpreted".

Very well. Then according to you, the people have no power, the powers and principalities have it all under control and the people don't need to worry about it.

I have not failed to recognize this. A great many of my beliefs run contrary to the rulings of this land. That doesn't mean they are right. Roe v Wade was ruled on, do you now declare it to be acceptable and not preach against it? Shame on you if you don't. Are you comfortable with the Kelo decision? Are you ready to give up your house of assembly when gov't comes and tells you that they can use it for a more profitable purpose?

I confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.

I will defend the proper application of the constitution of the United States to all citizens, regardless of how much I disagree with their views. Anything less is democracy or socialism.

I condemn in no uncertain language that Calvinism is bad doctrine and preaching at funerals against sodomy is a poor choice by someone not given up to a sound mind (of course this doesn't mean that I think he should be arrested).

There is no justification for it. However, there is a law that protects his rights to say these things.

 

Free speech is understood to cover art in images, paintings, statues, demonstrations like burning the flag, effigies, pictures. Because of free speech you can make a documentery or movie showing anything you wish.

It is curious that you would defend one form and one form only of free speech.

But I have to ask. Do you want to protect the person screeming obsenities. What if a person stood in town square and continuesly yelled the F word. Would you protect his right to speech?

 

It is sad that we have to have laws to protect common decency.

And it is sad that CREEPS AND COWARDS believe that we should allow them 'the right' to harass the grieving.

Then we must make laws (& even amendments to the Constitution) to protect the grieving.

 

That's what it is contemporarily understood to be but it is foolishness. The definition of the word "speech" has nothing to do with art or pornography.

Speech - 1. The faculty of uttering articulate sounds or words; the faculty of expressing thoughts by words or articulate sounds; the power of speaking (Source: Webster's 1828)​

I will defend the written and oral word of any citizen. I will not defend the works of heathen reprobate artists, pornographers and Hollywood directors.

If he is yelling it to rebuke people of engaging in unlawful carnal knowledge...sure. If he is yelling it to be obscene...not so much. When you find an instance of this and congress making a law about it we can talk more.

 

SO you are here to defend free speech. AS LONG AS you agree with the content of the speech and how the content is used.

There are state city and federal laws against obsenity. Dont believe me then go to a national park or other federal land and yell obscenities. You will be arrested by Federal employees and tried in federal court.


What if I want to stand in the town square and read a pornographic novel. Just words but they describe detailed sexual acts. Would you protect my right of free speech then?