White House Petition to classify church group as hate group

While I find what they do unethical and repulsive, it is legal free speech and was ruled as such. As others have said, it's the attention they get from the media which perpetuates them. If the Westboro church protests were just ignored, they would have no basis to sue anyone and grab more money to further fund their efforts.

The biggest problem with just legally regulating them into obscurity is that it becomes a precedent for further suppressing speech against anyone that society deems repulsive or unethical. A classic example was the attempt to impose RICO statutes against pro-life groups in an attempt to shut them up.

 

Correct, everyone is on board until you start saying something that a bunch of people disagree with. Still, under the 1st Amendment they do have a right to say what they say, i would respect that. I am part of a group that had to assert our 1st Amendment Rights in a local city council. We were 'counter-protested' screamed at, threatened. the whole shebang so I understand this well. I also understand the media as we had lots of media coverage from all over the globe. It's a dog and pony show, pure and simple. The Don Henly song "Dirty Laundry" sums it up perfectly 'Just give us something, something we could use'.
To some of the posts earlier, I would assume that this group wants the government to stop gays in the military and gay marriage? Would that not be a political goal and what they are doing is to that end? This is my point, putting the word 'God' on your signs and calling yourself a church when your goals are purely sensationalistic and political (I believe), should not entitle you to keeping your tax-exempt status.

 

I'm not saying 'regulate them into obscurity' I'm saying make 'em work like the rest of us who don't hide behind 'God' to express our political beliefs.

 

No, I don't see it as political just because you happen to oppose what the government is doing. Standing up for a religious cause is just that. If the US government happens to be the one causing the problem then it's understandable that it would be a target of that protest. While they're protesting it, they're making no attempt at legislating it away. They're trying to convince society that it is wrong. Just because the government happens to be sanctioning a particular view, it doesn't mean it's political to oppose it. For example, if one is pro-life, opposing abortion on demand isn't a political view just because the government says abortion is okay. For the abortion protester, it's a matter of protecting the life of the child, regardless of who supports it.

 

It's not a political belief. They're opposing homosexuality because the Bible states that homosexuality is wrong. That's a religious belief. They're just very vocal.

My guess is their text for what they're doing comes from Ezekiel 33:

7“Now as for you, son of man, I have appointed you a watchman for the house of Israel; so you will hear a message from My mouth and give them warning from Me.8“When I say to the wicked, ‘O wicked man, you will surely die,’ and you do not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require from your hand.9“But if you on your part warn a wicked man to turn from his way and he does not turn from his way, he will die in his iniquity, but you have delivered your life.

 

Can we tax them them too?

 

They are taxed to the extent that the law allows. Three of the members are lawyers for the state of Kansas. Their income is subject to taxation as are employees of the church. They are not taxed on winnings from a lawsuit, but I don't believe anyone is taxed on winnings from a lawsuit as long as the winnings are not punitive damages. Donations to the church are not taxable until that money gets paid out in the form of wages.

 

There's nothing that says a "Hate Group" has to actually engage in violence or even provoke actual violence, other than people making their own interpretation of what a hate group is based on their own belief. They don't have to say WE ASK OUR FOLLOWERS TO KILL MORE PEOPLE TO SUPPORT OUR BELIEFS in order for them to fall under what a hate group is by definition. I mean their official stance was they were going to show up to "sing praise to God for the glory of his work in executing his judgment." That pretty much is applauding what happened.

Plenty of people say things here that I find highly disagreeable but I don't tell them they can't say what they say. There's a bit of a difference. The fact that they encourage a certain hostility towards specific groups of people makes them fall under by definition of what a hate group is. Which is what the question at hand is. If everyone wants to interpret a hate group as having to actually engage in or provoke others to physically act out in violence that's fine. The closest thing to implying there is violence is involved is the word malice in the definition. And, by definition malice doesn't necessarily mean physical harm specifically.

I digress, it's your right to free speech to make your own interpretation.

 

The problem is people are far to concerned with the value of a life.

Heck, 90 years ago, i could have strolled into their homes and blown them away. It would have been a cold case in a week.

Hell, 50 years ago, i could have tied everyone up in the living room, and lit them on fire. The coroner of hte day would have said "this terrible house fire claimed these poor people" and that would have been the end of that. It would have been blamed as an electrical thing.

Nowadays, there's far to much investigation, and techniques for catching people that you cant get away from the law.

Unless you're in a sealed biohazard suit, no witnesses, and a knife, you arent getting away with it.

 

Im being completely honest.

Its this "save everybody" and "everybody's special" bullshit that has us in the situation we're in. Some people are inherently shitty.

Its the reason why we're not winning wars

Its the reason why we have issues at home

Its the reason we have rampant crime

Its even the same reason why we still have dumbass mother fuckers in positions of power in the banking sector and wall street.



Our country use to be very draconian. Much like russia is/was.
Hell, WW2, we'd fire-bomb and entire city, kill women/children, burn the town to ash, and make it so hot the road tar would run like water. It was leveled fucking death across the board.

And we'd do it just to prove a point.


Nowadays, we get our nipples in a knot if we so much as slap a terrorist around because he wont crack, or we launch a missile at a known terrorist hotspot and have terrorists son killed in collateral.


Point is, political correctness and "love and happiness for everyone" no longer works.

 

"Thank God for dead soldiers"
"Thank God for forest fires" (when they appeared at the funerals for the firefighters lost to a large fire in San Bernardino)

That's pretty damned close to "encouragement"

Again... this is a group of attorneys and they make their living filing 1A lawsuits. They know EXACTLY how far they can go, and they go right to that line.
They will walk up and stand with their nose an inch away from the face of a PGR biker and taunt them into throwing a punch (I don't think it's happened yet).

 

Thou shalt not kill

 

*sabbath

and

http://www.openbible.info/topics/working_on_the_sabbath

 

Like fundamentalist Christians, like ultra-orthodox Jews like fundamentalist Islamics, it's all the same book. That book was designed to bring order out of chaos, it's a how to guide on building a 'civilized' society. It was also designed to consolidate religious power over different agrarian, nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes. The book served its purpose 2000+years ago. It pains me to watch people try to insist that we should live our lives by that book today. When people start spouting quotes from that book, especially the more extreme parts, I just tune out. Thall shall not eat pork? Kosher food? Because bad food could kill you if not prepared right. The Ten Commandments? Why do you think those were needed? Because it was the Wild West in the Middle East back then, you had a lot of tribes killing each other. They were simple rules to live by which, if followed, created a civilized society.
I don't like fundamentalism of any stripe, period.

 

* murder

There is an important difference. Taking a 17th century translation of any ancient document absolutely literally is a recipe for misunderstandings and apparent contradictions.
Same goes for the NIV, Living Bible, and other versions that are simply updates of the KJV translation.

 

I understand the difference between " kill " and " murder " , I also find it interesting that some text in the Bible is quite open to interpretation while other text , not so much

 

this, people die, that's life, get over it.
you can't save everyone, you won't save everyone, go live your life doing stuff with family and friends, not boycotting this because they do that, ect.

it pisses me off seeing people throwing away their life trying to do the impossible.

 

Why stop there? In my opinion, all those worthless things listed in the Bill of Rights should be yanked since every single one intrudes on, or in some way bothers, at least someone.

 

Not to get the thread off track but Christians are no longer bound to the Mosaic Law. That's why we don't stone people or restrict our diet to that laid out in the Mosaic Law.