[watsisname]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church#Laws_limiting_funeral_protests makes me feel better.

[karajorma]

If i was in america you could count me in on the counter protest on the other side of the cemetery

I wasn't on about that. I was on about the fact that the ruling means you can probably get away with 24/7 demonstrations outside their church holding placards saying "Suck my dick Fred Phelps', you know you really want to"

You can probably make them pretty loud during the daytime too.

[Grizzly]

Is there a freedom of molotov cocktailing? :<

Apprently, Art falls under freedom of speech. So if you could set someone on fire in an artistic manner...

[MP-Ryan]

You'll note that the Snyder lawsuit was actually not triggered by the protests, but by the posting of a poem directly about the Snyder family on Westboro's website.  That never was and should not be protected by freedom of speech - an individual's right to protection and privacy was previously paramount.  The USSC has just removed that protection, whether they want to admit it or not (and one justice's written decision addresses that very point - not the dissenting judge, notably).

This is the problem with narrow legal interpretation surrounding wording of amendments - unforseen (or in this case, forseen but unacknowledged) consequences.

[QuantumDelta]

So wait, if you're american, you can now say what the hell you like about who the hell you like and there's nothing they can do about it?

.....................What changed from normal then?

[redsniper]

Nothing. Some just suspected that things might change in light of Westboro's dickery.

[Mefustae]

This is the problem with narrow legal interpretation surrounding wording of amendments - unforseen (or in this case, forseen but unacknowledged) consequences.

So you're saying we should prepare for unforeseen consequences?

[Mongoose]

Needs moar s's in conssssequencesssssss.

[Nuclear1]

You'll note that the Snyder lawsuit was actually not triggered by the protests, but by the posting of a poem directly about the Snyder family on Westboro's website. 

Actually the lawsuit came from the signs at the protest.  Not once in the entire SCOTUS ruling was the website mentioned.

And yeah, I read Justice Breyer's concurring statement (which I assume you were referring to), but he himself concluded that the right to protection from IIED needs to be balanced against the right to speak on public issues.  Unfortunately, WBC's right to speak on public issues outweighed Snyder's protection from IIED.  They didn't interfere with the funeral, and Snyder didn't even know what was written on the signs until after the ceremony when he saw it on the news. 

[Sushi]

Actually the lawsuit came from the signs at the protest.  Not once in the entire SCOTUS ruling was the website mentioned.

And yeah, I read Justice Breyer's concurring statement (which I assume you were referring to), but he himself concluded that the right to protection from IIED needs to be balanced against the right to speak on public issues.  Unfortunately, WBC's right to speak on public issues outweighed Snyder's protection from IIED.  They didn't interfere with the funeral, and Snyder didn't even know what was written on the signs until after the ceremony when he saw it on the news.

IIED: Intentional Inflictment of Emotional Distress. I google so you don't have to.

[Nuclear1]

Actually the lawsuit came from the signs at the protest.  Not once in the entire SCOTUS ruling was the website mentioned.

And yeah, I read Justice Breyer's concurring statement (which I assume you were referring to), but he himself concluded that the right to protection from IIED needs to be balanced against the right to speak on public issues.  Unfortunately, WBC's right to speak on public issues outweighed Snyder's protection from IIED.  They didn't interfere with the funeral, and Snyder didn't even know what was written on the signs until after the ceremony when he saw it on the news.

IIED: Intentional Inflictment of Emotional Distress. I google so you don't have to.

I love my acronyms

[redsniper]

Improvised Improvised Explosive Device

[sigtau]

****ers like these make the sound-minded Christians (yes, sound-minded ones exist--I'm one of them--also, inb4 "all religious people are fail because I said so/they reject reality/they persecute everybody") want to cry.

[Mongoose]

Personally, they make me want to kick them in the babymakers.

[Nemesis6]

****ers like these make the sound-minded Christians (yes, sound-minded ones exist--I'm one of them--also, inb4 "all religious people are fail because I said so/they reject reality/they persecute everybody") want to cry.

I'm curious - What exactly makes other Christians "sound-minded" as opposed to the WBC? Both the wrong and the sound-minded ones are Christians, so they're both delusional, only one group takes their delusion more seriously, and focuses much more on staging protests in order to share their views, or otherwise fulfill their duties to God as they perceive him. Where is the line? It seems like whenever people talk about how the WBC are wrong or otherwise not in the right, it all boils down to "I don't like what they say". Some people do some minimal bible-searching and pull out stuff like John 3:16 to say how God doesn't hate the world, and the WBC will come right back at them by telling them to read John 3:18.

As a sound-minded Christian, do you stay away from things like eating shell-fish(abomination, the same word the bible uses about homosexuality), or wearing clothes of mixed fabrics? If you don't, how can you claim to be sound-minded, or a "real" Christian in light of John 2:4?

[sigtau]

The matter of religion is a subjective one, and to use a term such as 'delusional' would be to have opinion, yet you state it as if it were fact.  Westboro Baptist Church is simply an attention whore, with the label "Christian" slapped on.

As for the other prods at my 'heresy' towards my own faith, I always thought that God has a plan for me, so whatever that may be, I'll try and seek it out.  Until I figure out what it is, though, I'm doing whatever the hell I think it may be.  And if by eating shellfish, wearing mixed fabric clothes, and so forth you say I am not sound minded, then you are sadly mistaken.

By sound minded, I meant that I'm not one of those to reject morality and reason.  Feel free to bombard me with "science is reason, why are you religious" now, because I see it coming.  When I said 'sound-minded', I was not referring to my faith.  At all.  I was referencing the fact that I'm moderate, and that I don't force my beliefs on people like Westboro does.  And if in doing so, it makes me a heretic, oh ****, I don't give a damn, I'm entitled to believe what I want.  You can tell me I'm going to hell because I don't conform, but no one here knows my personal (perhaps even non-Biblical) beliefs better than myself--it's in my head and no one else's.

Please don't try and pinpoint me as a target.  I'm just trying to voice a simple opinion (and in saying this, I'm not trying to look like a victim--it just seems to me that you're putting words into my mouth).

[Pred the Penguin]

I kinda get what you mean. I know a average going Christian that's an asshole, which has more to do with his own personality than religion.

[General Battuta]

****ers like these make the sound-minded Christians (yes, sound-minded ones exist--I'm one of them--also, inb4 "all religious people are fail because I said so/they reject reality/they persecute everybody") want to cry.

I'm curious - What exactly makes other Christians "sound-minded" as opposed to the WBC? Both the wrong and the sound-minded ones are Christians, so they're both delusional, only one group takes their delusion more seriously, and focuses much more on staging protests in order to share their views, or otherwise fulfill their duties to God as they perceive him. Where is the line? It seems like whenever people talk about how the WBC are wrong or otherwise not in the right, it all boils down to "I don't like what they say". Some people do some minimal bible-searching and pull out stuff like John 3:16 to say how God doesn't hate the world, and the WBC will come right back at them by telling them to read John 3:18.

As a sound-minded Christian, do you stay away from things like eating shell-fish(abomination, the same word the bible uses about homosexuality), or wearing clothes of mixed fabrics? If you don't, how can you claim to be sound-minded, or a "real" Christian in light of John 2:4?

Maybe sound-minded Christians aren't retarded fundamentalists who believe the Bible is literal truth that should be taken as an itemized guide to day-to-day existence?

I think the difference between a sound-minded Christian and the WBC is pretty ****ing clear, the sound-minded Christian interprets their faith in a way that does not force itself on others or create imperatives to inflict harm and distress. If you don't believe faith is open to interpretation then you don't understand it; you actually take it as revealed truth from God rather than a human construct and therefore execute your own argument on the spot.

It's not like any of us atheists are any different. The fact that you haven't killed yourself indicates that you subscribe to a belief system every bit as delusional and baseless as Christianity - you believe that your existence in the world has some sort of value or meaning that will last beyond the extinction of your tiny organic consciousness. There is no point whatsoever in accumulating memories, having pleasant experiences or attempting to help others, because any possible meaning that can be derived from these behaviors will die with you. A rational actor, recognizing this, would either reduce its predictive threshold (if it maintained a fundamental, baseless belief that existence was preferable to nonexistence) or kill itself. We do the former; we live from day to day, seeking positive experiences, because we are unable to acknowledge the paralyzing truth of our own eventual annihilation. Ultimately we all need to fixate on something irrational to survive, even if it's something as basic as 'survival is good'.

You're also reading the Bible directly, taking its wording at face value, rather than recognizing that this is an ancient document which has been translated numerous times. That's the behavior of a true believer, not a critical thinker; picking out inconsistencies in a work that is obviously rife with them is easy, but it doesn't speak to the actual flaws of Christianity, which have far more to do with the behavior of its leaders and followers than with tenets of the religion itself. I suspect you are a deeply religious man, without any of the cognitive values of a secular humanist; you define your faith as a negative, and lash out at those who don't share it, but you fundamentally think the same way they do. Like the Westboro Church, you try to force your values on others rather than recognizing that they're just a way to guide your own behavior. You proselytize and attack.

Try atheism. It's a much more refreshing, positive worldview. And an atheist's analysis of religion is simple: it should be based on outcomes. If a person's faith produces constructive, prosocial behavior in that person, it is acceptable. If it produces antisocial, negative behavior, including the infliction of distress upon others or the restriction of their rights, as in the WBC, it is deleterious. The actual content of the faith is irrelevant. People can believe whatever they please so long as it leads to positive results that acknowledge the freedom of others to believe and act as they choose (if, in turn, their actions do not infringe that right).

[Scotty]

Good post, would read again.

[Polpolion]

dammit battuta even my most poignant response would now be redundant, you cheater