The Westboro Baptist Church and other Bible Thumpers

Post Reply New Topic

Aside from trespassing at funerals and disturbing the peace have they done any violent acts.

I would remind you that being unpleasant is not a crime in the United States.

ruveyn

+1 loudly thumping a Bible in response here.

Someone made the comment about getting sued by WBC. That's an interesting one to me.

What you have to keep in mind is that everything WBC does is strictly within the law and is limited in scope and duration. Compare the way WBC conducts protests with the antics of Occupy. Occupy protestors have taken over parks, which is within their right to do as a form of public protest--and the parks do belong to the public. Where they went wrong was in making their stay in public places a long-term stay, which probably violated local laws and created unsanitary conditions. Their presence there was destructive and interfered with the ability of others to share the use of public property.

I admire the Occupy protestors for their willingness to resort to civil disobedience when they feel they cannot make an effective statement any other way. But effective civil disobedience tactics have never been destructive to private or public property. By preferring peaceful tactics that portray the protestors as otherwise law-abiding citizens who are victims of injustice, they can gain the sympathy of the public. Occupy has often failed to do that and more often portray themselves as troublemakers who don't even know what it is they are protesting. They already have broad freedom to protest injustice. But they disregard law and order, they have no clear goals in their protest, and they don't have a clear and consistent message. They are their own worst enemies.

WBC, on the other hand, has a strong political advantage by staying just within the law. They make sure that they are going through the right channels, their protest activities are sharply limited and focussed, they are always right on target and on message. They are able to say and do pretty much whatever they want precisely because, unlike less organized groups, they have the law on their side.

An effective counter-protest against WBC will utilize the same tactics.

Opposition groups really don't have much to worry about WBC for the moment, though. WBC makes it hard enough for the public to take them seriously. But what will happen is that other groups who DO side with WBC and share parts of their agenda--white supremacy groups come to mind--will join their ranks and become emboldened to make their own messages public. Over time, they'll begin to increasingly have an effect over the public and gain more sympathizers. By using the same tactics WBC uses, the opposition won't silence WBC, but at least they can lower WBCs relative volume. And in doing so, they'll gain sympathizers of their own.

Filing lawsuits is one of those unChrist-like behaviors churches don't need to engage in. The problem, though, is that they are used in the secular world to great effect. You see this in the business world, especially. Monster Cable, for example, has filed lawsuits against a large number of companies who used the word "monster" in their names. The thing about Monster Cable, though, is that their lawsuits have no merit whatsoever. Some companies have stood their ground against Monster Cable and won. But in winning, some expended so much of their financial resources that they teetered on the edge of bankruptcy. And that's the whole point. Monster Cable doesn't really care if they win a lawsuit because they have the money to burn and can vastly expand their profits if they can settle with companies to secure the trademark name for themselves. The threat of lawsuits is mere intimidation. Some people give in to it because they don't want any trouble, or they cave because they know they can't afford the court battle.

Religious institutions really should not file those kinds of retaliatory, intimidating lawsuits. However, in the secular world it is perfectly acceptable to protect your reputation through the legal system. It is perfectly to say negative things about people, anyone, AS LONG AS those things are true. The problem is that the people who say negative things about others have to somehow qualify what they say. Generally speaking, people will open their mouths or put something down in print without ever once thinking they might get called on it; so even if what they say is TRUE, they'll initially have trouble backing themselves up. A lot of people will resort to hearsay in making public accusations. Even if the accusations are true, the persons or groups those accusations are directed to can take a gamble on a person's ability to back up those accusations. If that person is unable to establish the fact of what they accuse someone else of doing, it's libel or slander.

The religious institution (or whoever) will always lose the case if the accusations can be established as factual. However, lawsuits are expensive. The threat of a lawsuit can often be enough to intimidate the accuser into backing down or retracting the defamatory statement. And that's the whole point. They don't have to win the lawsuit to make a significant impact.

This is a frequently-used tactic of Scientology, also. Winning is not the point. Intimidating the opponent into submission or draining economic resources to near-bankruptcy is often enough to silence critics and is often the goal.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpiobTQ-VGM[/youtube] EPIC WIN!! ![youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URfGzRHqXpk[/youtube] they got sued and lost another EPIC WIN!! and one more EPIC WIN!![youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZJwSjor4hM[/youtube] sure these things happening to them isnt going to stop them from playing with fire because they think they are invincible because they are lawyers but that only delays things from happening and whenever karma hits them its going to hit them hard. Does it make me a good person feeling good inside that they are getting what they deserve or what I think they deserve most likely not, but man it sure feels good.

Last edited by AspieOtaku on 19 Jul 2012, 12:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhekTRrvGrI&feature=related[/youtube] Best epic win so far hehe.

That "THE JEWS KILLED JESUS" thing reminds me of junior high and high school, where I must've heard that and "CHRIST KILLER!" ten times a day and it was frequently scrawled on my locker or on my assigned desk in various classes.

I don't know what effect it's supposed to have but I understand it is said with a lot of hostility. Honestly, I don't get it, even if I were a religious sort of jew I don't see what is supposed to upset me about that.

The Irony of it all is they tend to forget that Christ himself was a Jew.

What crimes have they committed? Whose rights have they curtailed. What acts of violence have they committed?

ruveyn

Not all Nazis committed crimes, violated rights, or committed acts of violence. They did, however, support these acts.

This...is glorious. That woman got trolled harder than the Billy Goats Gruff.

How have WBC members enabled violence and the curtailment of rights? Be specific.

ruveyn

All of them. Proposition 8 was passed because people like them supported it.

I love Michael Moore, and I really miss his old TV show this clip is from (was it called TV Nation?). I recall when it first aired.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

"...people like them..."???

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qw9oX-kZ_9k[/youtube]

As I recall, the most vocal supporters of Prop 8 were Mormons. They're not even Christian.

[wait for it...]

OK, so probably most elements within WBC aren't Christian, either, but hopefully you'll recognize that there is a tremendous difference between WBC (far-right, fundamentalist, Calvinist, openly hateful) and LDS (moderate, Joseph Smith followers, don't even believe the Bible, a little odd but overall decent peacenik types).

^^^^^^^^

Your opinion on gay marriage is...?

I have a question for all the Christians who say the WBC are not Christian:

Do homosexuals go to Hell if they do not stop being homosexual? And are homosexuals allowed to adopt children, or are they going to push a homosexual agenda?

Does anyone believe homosexuality should be a criminal offense? How many Christians here don't like Catholics or Muslims?

Given Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell, and Rick Perry's event, I want the Christians who say the WBC is just some fringe sect that is going to go away eventually to actually give reasons why this kind of thinking will. Other Christians believe the message, but not the way it is brought across. That last part is really what it is about.

And that is relevant because...? The Bible is not favorable at all towards homosexual behavior, so why would you attempt to justify gay marriage from a Biblical worldview? It's absurd.


What does adopting children/pushing their agenda have to do with this?

As to the first question though, I've done a lot of thinking about this lately...

The short answer is that it appears that people cannot change their sexual orientation. Therefore, having an aberrant sexual orientation itself doesn't send you to hell. It is, rather, the sins you commit as a result of giving into those temptations that carry with them God's wrath. You can't stop being homosexual. But being homosexual and struggling against unwanted same-sex attraction does not compel you to actively engage in homosexual behavior. I might be angry enough at someone that I'm tempted to do them harm. I have control over whether I give into that or not.

The long answer:

My conclusion is that we don't choose our sinful predispositions. If we are born with a sin nature, it stands to perfect reason that we might also be predisposed to certain sins more than others--some are predisposed more to rage, a disregard for human life, greed/envy, jealousy, compulsive lying, kleptomania, sociopathy, pedophilia, and on and on. And, yes, I count same-sex attraction as an aberrant tendency. I think it is possible to ACQUIRE some or all of these tendencies, but what is most important for the purpose of this discussion is that in many cases we are born with certain tendencies which might be amplified by our environment.

Despite this, a TENDENCY, a predisposition, or an orientation towards certain behaviors is never once mentioned in the Bible as being sin itself. The Bible deals differently with temptation and action. Having feelings is not a sin.

Therefore, sexual orientation is not a sin. And by the way, I count pedophilia as a sexual orientation along with homosexuality. The Bible does not say that you're going to hell because of an attraction to the same sex or an inappropriate sexual attraction to children. What matters is whether the individual WANTS these attractions, feelings, or desires and ACTS upon them. I believe that a homosexual defined as someone who has an unwanted same-sex attraction unable to function in a relationship with someone of the opposite sex can either avoid acting out his sexual orientation or repent of an ongoing behavior and lived a changed life. That doesn't change who/what they are, but it does indicate that they desire to live according to what God desires for those who place their faith in Christ. It doesn't matter what your sexual orientation is; you can turn from sin--any sin--and live a new life in Jesus as a saved believer. Whether to try to find a partner of the opposite sex or live celibate is a choice you have to make on your own, but in either case the lifelong struggle one might face against same-sex attraction is not something that is going to send someone to hell.

And even if someone gives into temptation and reverts back into active homosexuality, I feel that indicates a weakness or immaturity of faith. I think the saved believer desires to leave a sinful life behind, but that's not necessarily an easy thing to do and may take time. Weak or immature faith isn't the same as no-faith-at-all. I think about Peter walking on the water... Despite Peter not having developed his faith to the point he could completely block out the storm and the waves, he STILL called out to Jesus to save him after he went under the water. I think someone who puts his faith in Christ and still slips into old behaviors is more likely to feel remorse for failures than someone who doesn't really believe that Jesus has any power to save him. I don't for a second believe that a believing homosexual is going to hell for failing in his struggle against unwanted attraction. I believe that a homosexual is going to hell for the same reason we are all initially destined for hell: We are all sinners in need of Jesus' atoning blood.


Again, not sure why this is even relevant. I want to know if homosexuality is destructive to culture and society. If we can all agree that it IS destructive, then it should be criminalized just as much as any other destructive behavior.

The trouble is we live in a pluralistic Western society that doesn't see it as something harmful. I think if you take a Biblical position on homosexuality, you have to conclude that it is harmful. However, because we espouse freedom of religion, homosexuality cannot be criminalized on the basis of religion. That could all change if we all become unified on the matter of dedicating ourselves as a nation and culture to the worship of God. But as it stands we are not a theocracy and are forced to find a secular reason for eliminating homosexuality. This is a difficult argument to make, so whether I think it should be criminalized or not isn't going to make much, if any, difference.

I can't say I don't like Catholics or Muslims. I can say I dislike Islam as a religion, but that's not the same as disliking the people.

I take some doctrinal issues with Catholics, but I don't discount them as Christians. I sharply diverge from Catholics on their reliance on good deeds as possessing salvific power together with faith. I see good deeds as evidence of what one believes, not something necessary for salvation. I think we owe Mary our respect and admiration, but I think Catholic adoration of Mary is inappropriately high. I also think the mass is highly ritualized and distracting from real worship. But none of that means that Catholics can't have faith in the blood of Jesus. It just means I'm worried that a high emphasis on those things can potentially mislead would-be believers into putting their faith into those things rather than in Christ, which makes those people little more than idol worshipers than genuine Christians. It's also a kind of religion many people are sort of "born into," and without having a choice in identifying as a believer, it leaves plenty of room for doubt as to whether one is really saved. So I'm not saying you can't be saved if you're a Catholic, but I do see many elements of their religion as extremely risky in comparison with evangelical worship practices.


Well, you're always going to have hypocrites, and I don't care what religion, sect, denomination, or school of thought you're talking about. According to Islam, those who profess faithfulness to Mohammed's teachings but lead a peaceful coexistence with unbelievers are hypocrites who deserve to be wiped out along with the infidels. There will always be people with agendas and will use whatever the latest craze is to hook people into buying into their particular variant of snake oil. I think Jerry Falwell is right on track in sticking to scripture, but he's low on compassion. Pat Robertson is an OK guy, but he's needlessly inflexible and I think that has hurt his theology. At least Pat Robertson makes the effort, whereas Jerry Falwell doesn't even make an attempt at understanding sinners. If you're going to have a condemning attitude, you really do have to be careful. Jesus was slow to condemn those already hopelessly lost in sin (and knew that they were), but Jesus wanted to SAVE them from their sins and get them to see God turning their lives around. These people were ready for repentance. Falwell has a difficult time reaching people at a crossroads and doesn't really seem all that interested in them. Pat Robertson strikes me as someone who wants to reach out to Christians who are struggling with living scripturally consistent lives and maybe reaching people who were raised as Christians but are still on the fence when it comes to making a decision for Christ. For someone like Robertson, it's really easy to count your successes. Convert an aspie atheist and I might start to be impressed.

But the main thing is that people somehow all seem to want to be better than each other, and it's the holier-than-thou types you really have to watch for. They are quick to judge others as sinners and spread messages of hate in order to cover their own iniquities. I'd really like to know how many homosexuals have come to Christ as a result of WBC. I'm betting none. I'm sure if you were to visit WBC long enough, it wouldn't take long to find that many of those who join WBC are troubled individuals who are covering for things they feel intensely guilty about and would rather expose the sins of others rather than confess their own. Admitting that you're a sinner in need of God's grace is the first step towards salvation. It's hard to take that step when you're too busy condemning others to admit your own sinfulness. And that is why I don't believe WBC people are Christian.

One more thing on the homosexual issue... Keep in mind that even if you were to replace "homosexuality" with "heterosexual contact in a spiritually inappropriate context," it would amount to the same thing. The focus in Christianity is on the believer's relationship with God. Adultery and fornication hurt that relationship just as much as homosexuality. It doesn't matter if your actions betray someone's trust in human relationships, although that is bad enough. It hinders a proper relationship between the believer and God.

I think I should remind everyone else here that Jerry Falwell is in fact dead, and so could not have joined Robertson and Perry in their psycho fundy/holy roller extravaganza. Unless...
Could it be?
No! GOD, PLEASE NO! ZOMBIE JERRY FALWELL!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer