Just an example. Evil is evil. One thing always leads to another. Sooner or later. There is nothing new under the sun.
God Bless This Town Of Patriots.....
- Thread starter dieseldiva
- Start date
Just an example. Evil is evil. One thing always leads to another. Sooner or later. There is nothing new under the sun.
Just an example. Evil is evil. One thing always leads to another. Sooner or later. There is nothing new under the sun.
Just an example. Evil is evil. One thing always leads to another. Sooner or later. There is nothing new under the sun.
There's nothing selective about it. You can flip things around any way you want, in theory - but the fact remains that Phelps is interfering with - and in some cases preventing - the practice of religion (or a religious ceremony) to which these people are entitled according to our constitution. This activity closely approaches the example of yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. It could also be compared to the intimidation tactics used by the radical pro-life protesters outside abortion clinics. The net effect of Phelps' efforts will eventually be to discourage funerals for our fallen soldiers unless communities decide that common decency in once again acceptable. These funerals are no threat to anyone. They're just the target of a cult that's found a unique method to promote their notoriety.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So, in what order would you like to flip these?
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Actually that's not right.
He isn't preventing anything. The practice of religion doesn't extend to everywhere, I can't practice Catholicism in a Mosque but I can in my own church.
Religious ceremonies are not part of the right, some religious ceremonies are simply not allowed here in this country. There is a strict restriction by the government (which in my opinion has been breached on a few fronts) which says no restrictions in the Constitution but not extending to other entities. Restrictions by private individuals and even cities happen all the time - private property and zoning laws respectfully. If I can't hold a church session in a hall that has a legal occupation limit of 100 people with 300, isn't that a restriction that is unconstitutional?
His actions discourage but don't prevent. His actions are offensive but not a show stopper.
Finally someone brings up the Cult word, which is exactly what this group is - thank you - but it won't stop it.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Maybe ..... or maybe not ....
Could be that it actually bolsters your credibility, as far as being someone who actually understands the document, it's meaning, and the ramifications of that (including understanding what happens when one allows it to be **** on by retards) - and as far as someone who is willing to stand up for it, and protect it .... as opposed to just being a coarse individual, (who actually doesn't understand it) who merely gives lip-service to it, and is willing to toss it away in a heartbeat - because they allow their own buttons to pushed, causing them to become emotionally reactive - becoming inclined to resort to physical violence .... simply because they don't agree with what someone says, or how and/or where they are saying it.
A civilized society is not built by the latter, only by the former ....
At best, the latter are only useful in that they can be used by the former ..... to keep in check those that are actually even worse the latter ....
Last edited:
Same as cultivate, "cult" comes from the Latin cultus, to inhabit, habitation, tilling, and worship, to do all the things necessary to see something take root and grow, especially with reference to ancient, primitive or established rituals and rites.
1. A system of religious beliefs and rituals also its body of adherents,
2. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
3. an instance of great veneration (awe or reverence) of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
4. the object of such devotion.
5. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
6. Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
These all describe religion, among other things such as Barbie doll collectors, Deadheads and Elvis fans, but it's generally in relation to religion where it gets applied.
The negative connotation of the term...
6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
7. the members of such a religion or sect.
...used to describe groups outside the norm is a relatively recent definition that is being used more and more to describe "those people" who we don't like and who are different. It is a definition that was first invented in 1605 by a man named Alessandro Ottaviano de' Medici, who was for 26 days known as Pope Leo XI. He used it to describe misguided Christians who were worshiping in a manner different than traditional Catholics, referring to those groups whose beliefs or practices were considered strange and not "proper."
But his narrowly defined pejorative use of the word more or less died with him and was all but forgotten until someone revived it in the late the 20th century, especially since the 1980s, and is highly subjective. It is a result of the anti-cult movement which uses the word in reference to groups seen as authoritarian, exploitative, and possibly dangerous.
What set the stage for this new redefining of the word was the introduced sociological classification in 1932 by American sociologist Howard P. Becker (son of Charles Becker, a spectacularly corrupt NYC police officer who went to the electric chair for murder in July 1915) as an expansion of German theologian Ernst Troeltsch's "church-sect" topology (Troeltsch was a German Protestant theologian and prolific writer of philosophy of religion and history).
Troeltsch's aim was to distinguish between three main types of religious behavior: churchly (traditional), sectarian (variants) and mystical (the communion with, identity with, or conscious awareness of the ultimate spiritual truth, divinity or God though direct experience, intuition, instinct or insight).
Becker then proceeded to create four whole categories out of Troeltsch's first two by splitting church into "ecclesia" and "denomination", and sect into "sect" and "cult". Ad there ya go. Like Troeltsch's "mystical religion", Becker's cults were small religious groups lacking in organization and emphasizing the private nature of personal beliefs. Golly, a brand new definition of a really old word.
Later formulations built on these characteristics while placing an additional emphasis on cults as deviant religious groups "deriving their inspiration from outside of the predominant religious culture." This deviation of course will naturally lead to a high degree of tension between the group and the more mainstream culture surrounding it.
So the word now implies a group which is a minority in a given society, those people who don't think like us. The 1913 entry for Webster's dictionary, for example, lists no pejorative or negative connotations. In fact, it lists no connotations at all that aren't included in the root word. The new and improved connotations have all been added over time by society for various reasons, but mainly for the purposes of molding minds in the same way that, say, homophobia is an invented word that connotates and connects an irrational fear, where no such irrationality actually exists, but it's done to make people change the way they think.
It is a term born and is now mostly used to tell others they are wrong for thinking like they do, and that they should think like the rest of us. Moses was the leader of a cult, absolutely, but no one considers him to be authoritarian, exploitative, and possibly dangerous.
I just find it interesting how people in society today will toss the "cult" word out there to describe all manner of groups that are different, yet won't apply it to their own religious thinking when that's where it comes from in the first place. Phelps is the leader of a cult, but he's traditionally Christian who graduated from a Christian seminary school, and there are Christians who have a real problem with that, as the mirror can be a painful thing, so they dismiss him pejoratively. Fact is, he's a Christian doing what Christians do, that of interpreting the Bible to suit his needs. That's a tough pill to swallow for a lot of Christians, so they must deal with it by distancing themselves from him. But it's not as easy as they think.
I'm assuming everyone that's reading this and is involved in the discussion has been to a graveside service for a loved one, and that these events aren't easily forgotten. The stress and angst involved with grieving for the departed is difficult to deal with even in the best of circumstances. Now for a small mental exercise - picture in your mind the last time you were at such a service (religious ceremony) and suppose that as you entered the cemetary you had within earshot or field of vision a group of nutty slimeballs singing and chanting obscenities in celebration of the death of your brother/sister/mother, etc. Although they might have the legal right to do that, no one can convince me that they wouldn't be severely INHIBITING MY RELIGION AND "THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF", not to mention my family's right of PEACEABLE ASSEMBLY. Granted, Phelps wouldn't be preventing anything, but he's certainly interfering to a great extent. It's probably a safe bet that none of us has been a target of Phelps' abuse, but I'll bet anyone who's been subjected to that treatment would have a different opinion about the extent of his free speech rights.
But free speech rights aside for the moment, I wonder if anyone has thought to challenge the notion that Phelps' cult activities really qualify as peaceable assemblies? They may not be throwing rocks and bottles, but the verbal assualts they mount such as "God hates
s" aren't quite in the same catagory as neighborhood Christmas carols.Apparently that's the case, because the US Supreme Court will make the decisive judgement sometime this winter regarding the legality of Phelps' disgusting antics when they render a decision on Snyder v. Phelps. If their initial comments during arguments on Oct. 6th are any indication, the Justices don't seem to sympathetic to Phelps and his percieved free speech rights:
"Liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said: "This is a case about exploiting a private family's grief. Why should the First Amendment tolerate that?" Fellow liberal Justice Elena Kagan, while noting that the demonstrators observed the law, said they were "glomming" onto a private family's funeral. Conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia recalled ugly protests against soldiers who had died in the Vietnam War.
Another conservative, Chief Justice John Roberts, repeatedly suggested the Westboro Baptist funeral protesters had singled out the dead soldier's family and the funeral to achieve "maximum publicity," not to discuss the morality of the war.
Roberts also was openly skeptical of the church's claim that "it is not an issue of seeking maximum publicity; it was using a public platform to bring a public message."
Under the U.S. Supreme Court: Funeral protesting pastor may win - UPI.com
But I personally must applaud the people of certain communities who have decided they will not tolerate this kind of activity and are going to take the necessary measures to prevent it from happening. It's about time that the silent majority decided to stand up for standards of common decency that in many cases are being trampled by a vocal minority.
Guess that's all the flip anyone needs.
Last edited: