• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Did we miss this earlier?

Pah

Uber all member
ACLU Sues for Anti-Gay Group That Pickets at Troops' Burials

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/22/AR2006072200643.html

By Garance Burke
Associated Press
Sunday, July 23, 2006; Page A02
KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- A Kansas church group that protests at military funerals nationwide filed suit in federal court, saying a Missouri law banning such picketing infringes on religious freedom and free speech.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit Friday in the U.S. District Court in Jefferson City, Mo., on behalf of the fundamentalist Westboro Baptist Church, which has outraged mourning communities by picketing service members' funerals with signs condemning homosexuality.
I'm sure the ACLU would co-defend Jerry Falwell also for his freedom of religious expression in Jerry's finding for the cause of 9/11.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
I don't get why they would want to picket at someone's funeral. That is rather disrespectful IMO.

Both the ACLU and the church group filed suit?
 

Booko

Deviled Hen
Pah said:
ACLU Sues for Anti-Gay Group That Pickets at Troops' Burials

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/22/AR2006072200643.html

Yes, apparently we did miss it. I was offline mostly then, so no surprise there.

The members of Westboro "Baptist" "Church" do have a right to free speech, even despicable speech.

The question is whether their right to free speech is greater than a mourning families right to have a funeral in peace.

We customarily shove protesting groups, even peaceful quiet ones, blocks and even miles away from the leaders they mean to address, and you don't hear any noise about that in the press. If you even know anyone's protesting, they're shown as if they were nothing but loonies.

I don't get how we can put so many restrictions on protest groups in situations like that, but we can let this group that offends nearly everyone in this country intrude on a private funeral.
 

Pah

Uber all member
Booko said:
....

I don't get how we can put so many restrictions on protest groups in situations like that, but we can let this group that offends nearly everyone in this country intrude on a private funeral.
Although I agree with the tradition, I don't know that funerals are a right. In the "battle of rights". free speech wins hands down.

But, you can say, what of the protesters outside an abortion clinic? In this case, free expression is upheld but the right of access to the clinic is protected.

My comment in the OP mentioned Jerry Falwell and his expression of hate - the difference between Fred and Jerry (blatant vs. much milder) are both obnoxious. Why is there not as much disapprobation for Jerry?
 

Booko

Deviled Hen
Pah said:
Although I agree with the tradition, I don't know that funerals are a right. In the "battle of rights". free speech wins hands down.


You hardly have a choice when to have a funeral, Pah. Either you go to it, or you miss it entirely. It's not like you can reschedule it.

There's an issue of simple decency and compassion in the case of someone who's mourning that I think deserves greater consideration than, say, a case of some group deliberating the fate of international finance.

But, you can say, what of the protesters outside an abortion clinic? In this case, free expression is upheld but the right of access to the clinic is protected.

Of course, and I think we've at least tried to make a decent balance here. I would not say the same for groups wishing to have a protest on public property when political parties meet. They are shoved so far away and penned up like dogs, and then told, "Oh, you can protest *here*' and it's of course nowhere near where the group they want to get the message to will ever have a chance of getting it. :sarcastic

We're willing to strike a balance for abortion protestors (fine), but we're not willing to consider it when there's money or power involved.

My comment in the OP mentioned Jerry Falwell and his expression of hate - the difference between Fred and Jerry (blatant vs. much milder) are both obnoxious. Why is there not as much disapprobation for Jerry?

Falwell is not disrupting someone's private funeral.

That's the difference.
 

Ciscokid

Well-Known Member
I couldn't think of using someone's funeral as a soap box for me to spout off. How can one do it?
 

nutshell

Well-Known Member
They do it because it gets people like us talking about it on the Internet. Eventually, some of us might start asking, "What were they protesting anyway?" And then we find out it's a controversial issue and (they hope) we start reexamining the issue and fall on their side of the fence.

That's why they do it, but should they? I don't think so. I'm pretty negative overall about group protests. I find, if anything, it makes me want to go against their cause even more.

(I've had a few bad run-ins when I worked in downtown Portland and there were protests going on).
 

Jaymes

The cake is a lie
I'm torn on this issue. On one hand, I'd want to strangle anyone that protested at the funeral of a friend of mine. On the other, even if I hate what they're saying, they have the right to free speech...
Victor said:
Of all places, why a funeral...:shrug:
Perhaps they like the illusion that they're "getting the last word in"... :D
 

Booko

Deviled Hen
Victor said:
Of all places, why a funeral...:shrug:

Because that's the only place where their insane hateful babbling would get news coverage, probably.

While a funeral is held in a public area (cemetary), I regard it as a private affair.

Westboro "Baptist" "Church" should have no more right to interrupt a funeral than the KKK should have to interrupt the "private" wedding of an interracial couple.
 

Booko

Deviled Hen
Jensa said:
I'm torn on this issue. On one hand, I'd want to strangle anyone that protested at the funeral of a friend of mine. On the other, even if I hate what they're saying, they have the right to free speech...

Their right to free speech need not be quashed. They can protest on Main Street for all I care, and say what they like about how homosexuals are causing our boys to die in Iraq. Just not at a funeral, which is private matter for families, even though of necessity it's held in "public."
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Booko said:
Because that's the only place where their insane hateful babbling would get news coverage, probably.

While a funeral is held in a public area (cemetary), I regard it as a private affair.

Westboro "Baptist" "Church" should have no more right to interrupt a funeral than the KKK should have to interrupt the "private" wedding of an interracial couple.

Completely agree....must spread karma.
 

Circle_One

Well-Known Member
I think the fact that they do it is disgusting, immoral and.... words escape me for how despicable this is.

I think the fact that they're suing so that they have the right to do it is ridiculous.

I think if this were to happen at a funeral where I was in attendance. Those picketers would be leaving with a lot less limbs than when they came.

Hold a picket sign then MF!




Sorry... I get heated over this particular issue as I can't possibly see how someone could do it, or how others could let it happen or condone it.
 

c0da

Active Member
Wow, thats really bad. If somebody did that outside a funeral I was attending, I would probably completely lose it. Like people have said, a funeral is a private affair, not a place for protestors - especially those with such a disgusting message.
 

Mathematician

Reason, and reason again
If they're not physically intruding on private grounds, I don't see how you can really ban their protesting. "Hate speech" is a pretty ambiguous term, and while I'd agree with someone here who pointed to this as a message of hate, somewhere out there someone will make a different case. And the best part is, neither of us are thrown in jail!

This comes a day after one of my friends was slammed into by a boat and drowned to death because she couldn't swim up. I've handled the emotions going to a funeral all too many times. My school career tallies up to 2 suicides and one manslaughter. Even though I'd be pretty upset if someone that time to protest, I don't support making it illegal.
 

jonny

Well-Known Member
Victor said:
Of all places, why a funeral...:shrug:

My question is why does the ACLU care. They can pick and choose who and what they want to defend. They WANT these people to picket the soldiers funerals. I can't imagine why. I couldn't have anything to do with the war, could it... :yes: :run:

Before someone blasts off a "it's all about defending free speech" line, that's absolute garbage. Why doesn't the ACLU defend my right to say that I have a bomb on a plane? How about yelling fire in a crowded theater? This isn't about free speech. This is about disgracing soldiers.
 
Top