Phelps Verdict (Jesus, salvation, tradition, grace, choice)

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

Originally Posted by Autodidact

No, I believe you're mistaken. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974), Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974).

How does a 1974 case show I am mistaken about the fact that the Phelps (2007) case was a civil, and not a criminal matter? Oh and when I click on those cites above, it just goes to a Wiki page informing me in general terms about case cites, not to that case in particular. Maybe let me know what the holding was, and I will know how I was mistaken.

B.

[Autodidact]

Gertz v. Welch, the Court ruled that in the absence of a showing of actual malice, private plaintiffs are limited by the First Amendment--at least with respect to comments about a matter of public concern-- to recovery only for actual damages, and not for punitive or presumed damages.

Freedom of the Press — Whether a private person has to show that a defamation defendant acted with actual malice or simply fault in order to recover damages.
The court ruled 5-4 that a private person does not have to show actual malice in order to recover damages for libel even if the defamatory comments discuss a public issue.
N.Y. Times v. Sullivan,
Whether the First Amendment limits a state's power to award libel damages brought by a public official against critics of the official's public duties.
The Court ruled that the First and Fourteenth Amendments require a public official suing for defamation to prove that the allegedly defamatory comments were made with 'actual malice — that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by MdmSzdWhtGuy

How does a 1974 case show I am mistaken about the fact that the Phelps (2007) case was a civil, and not a criminal matter? Oh and when I click on those cites above, it just goes to a Wiki page informing me in general terms about case cites, not to that case in particular. Maybe let me know what the holding was, and I will know how I was mistaken.

B.

Oh no, it was civil. My point is that the first amendment can apply in a civil context, because the government (court) can impose a judgment for damages, with the authority and power of the government to enforce it.

[fantôme profane]

You highlighted the wrong part.

Originally Posted by Autodidact

Gertz v. Welch, the Court ruled that in the absence of a showing of actual malice, private plaintiffs are limited by the First Amendment--at least with respect to comments about a matter of public concern-- to recovery only for actual damages, and not for punitive or presumed damages.

The absence of malice defense is obviously unavailable to the Phelps people. Malice is their mission statement. Their actions and even their own word clearly show they intended to cause distress. Actual malice can be clearly shown.

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by fantôme profane

You highlighted the wrong part.
The absence of malice defense is obviously unavailable to the Phelps people. Malice is their mission statement. Their actions and even their own word clearly show they intended to cause distress. Actual malice can be clearly shown.

Very interesting point. That gets into freedom of religion, and in particular the belief of certain adherents (mostly Christian) that their religion includes the freedom to present their views to others, usually in the form of proselytizing. Many Christians, including those in the military, consider this to be part of their religious freedom, while others, such as Mikey Weinstein and myself, consider it to be an infringement on other people's religious freedoms, including the right to be free from religion. Anyway, to get back to Phelps et al. they would assert, I believe, their religious duty to preach to sinners about their sin. Thus it is not only a freedom of speech case but freedom of religion, which makes it interesting.

They might argue that they were exhibiting not malice, but love for their audience, whom they were trying to save from eternal condemnation. That would be consistent with mainstream Christian theology.

In fact although Phelps is a psycho, and takes it to an extreme, his theology is not marginal. It's regular old Calvinist Christian doctrine. And boy, does he know his scripture. I have found that although most American Christians hate him, their theology is actually pretty close to his. They agree (many of them, not all) that God demonstrates punishment as well as concern, that He is angry as well as loving, that homosexuality is a sin. In fact, the most radical thing about Phelps' theology is not his condemnation of homosexuality, which is widespread, but his Calvinism, which is a minority view.

Getting back to the hate speech laws in Europe, there is a minister in some Scandinavian country--Sweden?--who went to jail because his sermons condemning homosexuality were considered hate speech.

Anyway, since no one involved here was a public person (other than maybe Phelps) and it's not a defamation case, they wouldn't even have to prove malice, under Gertz v. Welch.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Autodidact

In fact although Phelps is a psycho, and takes it to an extreme, his theology is not marginal. It's regular old Calvinist Christian doctrine. And boy, does he know his scripture. I have found that although most American Christians hate him, their theology is actually pretty close to his. They agree (many of them, not all) that God demonstrates punishment as well as concern, that He is angry as well as loving, that homosexuality is a sin. In fact, the most radical thing about Phelps' theology is not his condemnation of homosexuality, which is widespread, but his Calvinism, which is a minority view.

Wow that's unfortunate. I have never heard of any Christian church that is remotely close to Phelps.

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

Wow that's unfortunate. I have never heard of any Christian church that is remotely close to Phelps.

Sure, it's the methods people hate. People right here on religious forums espouse very similar views, using different terms:
Homosexuality is a sin/abomination.
God is both loving and angry, and it is right and just that He should be so. God condemns and punishes all sin, including homosexuality.
Etc.

As I say the controversial part is the Calvinism, the idea of pre-destination and T.U.L.I.P.

It focuses on God’s sovereignty, stating that God is able and willing by virtue of his omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence, to do whatever He desires with His creation. It also maintains that within the Bible are the following teachings: That God, by His sovereign grace predestines people into salvation; that Jesus died only for those predestined; that God regenerates the individual where he is then able and wants to choose God; and that it is impossible for those who are redeemed to lose their salvation.

I think most American Christians are Arminians, and believe that each individual can choose whether to answer the call to grace and be saved.

I think the basic problem originates in God's omniscience and omnipotence, and attempts to solve the problem of a God who knows and sees into the future, and to reconcile this with free will as it regards God's grace and salvation.

Haven't really seen statistics on this, though, and I don't know whether most Arminians have thought consciously about what they believe on these points and why, while it seems like most Calvinists know they're Calvinists.

I believe the Christian Reconstructionist movement would be considered Calvinist.

And I actually don't know why I felt compelled to embark on this essay regarding Calvinism.

Anyway, sorry for the unnecessarily long post, my point was the the gay stuff is not controversial, the methods are, and to some extent the Calvinism. Have you visited God Hates ****? Dang, it says it's getting a temporary facelift. Well, try this. What it will show you is that while you may disagree with his exegesis (if you're a liberal Christian) Pastor Phelps is very, very Biblical. Basically he's an inerrantist and either really does base everything he does on the Bible, or at a minimum can build a good case that is what he's doing.

I really think every modern American Christian should visit God Hates **** and wrestle with the issues that he raises, from a Christian point of view.

[Seyorni]

Fascinating posts, autodidact. I wasn't aware Phelps was of the Calvinist persuasion. It begs the question: what is he trying to accomplish? If he can effect no change in the final outcome of things, why go to all the effort?

You make a good point about his basic theology. The public objection seems more rooted in his application of Christian teachings than in the theology itself.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Autodidact

As I say the controversial part is the Calvinism, the idea of pre-destination and T.U.L.I.P.

My impression is that Calvinism is very much alive in Protestant Christianity. The only reason why it's a minority is that Catholics don't wholeheartedly accept it, tipping the balance.

[Seyorni]

I disagree, angellous. It seems to me that TULIP would grate heavily on the sensibility of most American Christians, were they aware of this theology.