US Supreme Court allows anti-gay military funeral protests

[layoutshooter]

It must really suck being you, living in a country such as ours must be trying on the soul. I do feel for you though, it must be hard to contain your anger and frustration, I mean, with all these things going on in our country, our freedoms taken away, our borders not secure, sharia law infiltrating our courts, suburbs going to hell, Baptists' exploiting their religous freedoms, and on and on and on it goes, what helpless feelings you must have.

You have no idea in the world what you are talking about. You have NO idea in the world who I am or what I am like. Anger? Sometimes, Frustrations? Of course.

Suck to be me? What a laugh. As long as I remain free I have a GREAT LIFE! I hunt, I fish, I spend time with family. I donate time to two conservation groups. I have lots of friends and I always look for new ones. I worship as a free man in the church of my choice. I interfere with no one.

Baptists exploring their religious feelings? What about other practicing theirs? Does their "right" to explore trump others "right" to partake in theirs? Is their particular brand of religion more right than someone else believes?

Before you decide what other peoples lives are like I suggest that you first make an attempt to know that person. Being clueless is a bad start. That is why I try to ask questions of you. It is a waste of time for the most part since the internet is not reality.

You see, just by reading YOUR posts I would think that it must REALLY suck to be you! Your hatred of TV entertainers is really silly. Your belief that those entertainers are truly shaping the political world is scary.

Now, that paragraph likely does NOT reflect how you really are in REAL life, just as yours does not reflect how I live my life.

This country has many challenges facing it. The idea that government is the answer is causing most of the problems in my opinion. The idea that less than 600 people out of a population of over 300 million is going to come up with the answers is just foolish. Government is the CAUSE of the problems, NOT the answer. THAT is the biggest difference between your screen person and me. I believe that the individual is the answer and refuse to pay homage to a bunch of corrupt people who's only goal is to control the People.

 

[greg334]

Using your freedom of speech wisely includes having RESPECT for others, like those who are grieving the loss of a loved on killing in the service of this country.

Well the service of this country should never be any factor when talking about all of our rights, the person isn't more important as anyone else - it is a neutral issue about rights. BUT with that said there is not a word about respect, offending someone else or anything like that in the first amendment or the entire constitution.

Interfering with the most private of ceremonies, the funeral of a loved one, for ANY reason is BEYOND reason.

BUT there is a serious problem with the idea that the group is actually interfering with the actual ceremony, they were not. There seems to be a fact that they are not actually causing the stoppage with any proceedings, this seems to be what the SC justices are basing their decision on.

While I agree with the ruling I DESPISE those who do this and WOULD, without a doubt, insure PEACE and quiet at a funeral involving a family member of mine.

I also despise them but the problem is I support the constitution first, not any religious rites that are created by man for the purpose of man. The constitution says there is freedom of religion not freedom of ceremony or freedom from noise. It is there to limit the government from imposing their will onto us, not to prevent citizens from actually speaking up at a ceremony.

You can take this notion that you are being prevented to practice by looking at how people preventing others from practicing their religion who are either the Mormon or Jehovah Witness. They go door to door and spread the word, they try to engage people but they are slammed and told they can't do that or face harsh comments. It is in their religion to do that work, and their method is door to door so are we interfering with their rights by being belligerent towards them like Phelps and his group are by protesting?

My family and I have THAT right too. The freedom to practice OUR religious rights WITHOUT interference of others.

Well hate to break the news to you, I do not see one incidents where this group has actually interfered with a religious ceremony at a church or grave site. They are protesting but not stopping one person from practicing their religion, so your rights have not be violated.

What you and others seem to perceive is that your rights are defined as you want them to be and you are thinking that interference is noise or opposing religious points of view being presented at a time when you don't want them. Again YOU do not have a right NOT to be offended.

Why is it that those rights are seldom mentioned? Some in here might even say that we don't have a "right" to that. Our beliefs are just as "right" as those who would disturb us.

Well maybe because there isn't a right there being violated?

That's a point that has been lingering in my mind ever since these fools started appearing in the news. At what point does their right of free speech trump my right to practice my religion?

When they actually interfere with your right.

Interference is preventing you from worshiping in the religion of your choice.

Interference is stopping you from entering a church.

Interference is when you are told that you are not allowed to practice a specific religion or that you can not abide by the laws of that religion.

The last thing is quite amazing when you think about it if you apply it to other issues - there are a great number of Christians who are telling Muslims that they have to conform by not applying Sharia Law in their lives and not allowed to abide by it.

In many of these funerals the Phelps cult is doing exactly that - interfering with a peaceful, law-abiding religious ceremony. In just briefly scanning some of the reviews in the media about the decision, it seems that the "interference with practice of religion" approach was not taken and still might be an option. There were also some comments about possibly taking action to revoke their tax-exempt status as a church.

The bottom line in all of this is simply he and his group have been protesting against what they perceive as a threat but not preventing anyone from practicing their religion.

AND in order to stop them, violence won't do it.

 

[layoutshooter]

Greg, silence is part of some peoples religious ceremony. Shouting at those who are in prayer is NOT allowing them to practice their religion as they believe. That IS interfering with their practice.

I agree with the SC decision, it SHOULD have been 9-0. Just as the health care decision should be. Obama care is unconstitutional.

I bet you dollars to donuts that if I had a group of several hundred people that held anti-Obama signs, shouted him down, called him names etc that we would be arrested. The amendment is NOT equal for all.

 

[greg334]

Greg, silence is part of some peoples religious ceremony. Shouting at those who are in prayer is NOT allowing them to practice their religion as they believe. That IS interfering with their practice.

Well silence is about the person practicing not telling the world to stop moving because of a ceremony. A church who is having a silent moment sitting next to a freeway doesn't ask for those on the freeway to stop driving because they want silence.

Shouting in what context? Standing within a foot of a person is intimidation with the intent to stop a person from practicing but standing 100 feet away isn't with a sign yelling things about the country is not.

Pray has nothing to do with practice in this context, everyone defines pray differently, so what offends one doesn't offend another and the words "you don't have a right NOT to be offended" can be applied.

I agree with the SC decision, it SHOULD have been 9-0. Just as the health care decision should be. Obama care is unconstitutional.

BUT Obama care is an altogether different subject and has not a thing to do with the first amendment.

I bet you dollars to donuts that if I had a group of several hundred people that held anti-Obama signs, shouted him down, called him names etc that we would be arrested. The amendment is NOT equal for all.

Well of course you will have a problem with it but think of it this way, when we have political discourse in this country the ruling class takes steps to limit those freedoms to openly speak about the problems causing the discourse. The tuscon incident is a very good example, the shooter is facing federal and state charges, there are laws being passed to limit political protests and people are all upset in the government that it happened to "one of our own", Obama. The problem is that the shooter is a nut case and this should have been treated as a nut case incident but instead we are forced to reexamine the freedom of speech issue and are told we must limit our freedom in order to prevent another government employee from being hurt.

 

[layoutshooter]

We will NEVER agree Greg. I hope that you are never faced with dealing with these people. I hope and pray that NO one ever is. I have a sneaky feeling that many who back this kind of "freedom" in theory would NOT back it if it became personal. Maybe even you.

I know that many in here to NOT agree with my idea that EVERY freedom carries a RESPONSIBILITY. These people are RUDE and disrespectful of others feelings, rights and beliefs. That, in my book, is NOT showing responsibility.

As I said, we don't agree, but we don't shout each other down.

By the way, I believe that there is a HUGE difference between traffic noise and a deliberate attempt to disrupt a religious ceremony.

 

[Pilgrim]

Interference is preventing you from worshiping in the religion of your choice.
Interference is stopping you from entering a church.

Agreed. In some of the more recent "protests" by the Phelps cult they have complied with the 1000-foot rule and other restrictions that keep them out of sight and earshot of the funeral and those attending it. However, I believe there have been instances when this was not the case - situations where the cult signs, chants, and obscenities were clearly seen and heard by those attending the funeral and thereby disrupting their religious practice. What needs to happen is the individual states passing legislation addressing this type of activity.

Interference is when you are told...that you can not abide by the laws of that religion.
The last thing is quite amazing when you think about it if you apply it to other issues - there are a great number of Christians who are telling Muslims that they have to conform by not applying Sharia Law in their lives and not allowed to abide by it.

So what you're saying is that certain Christians are "interfering" with these muslims' practice of their religion when they prevent things like the genital mutilation of teenage girls, the stoning of adulterous women and death to anyone believed to have blasphemed the prophet? I don't think that any court in the country is going to allow this kind of barbarian activity just because some people claim it's included in their religious practices. Religious practices that are contrary to our constitution and our laws are not tolerated in this country, and for good reason.

 

[greg334]

We will NEVER agree Greg. I hope that you are never faced with dealing with these people. I hope and pray that NO one ever is. I have a sneaky feeling that many who back this kind of "freedom" in theory would NOT back it if it became personal. Maybe even you.

Actually Layout the difference is how we look at the rights. I see them as something that even if offends me, it is a right they or others can do until it is something that actually stops me from doing things I want or need to do. Civil rights rhetoric that is used today offends me because it shows me a power struggle to keep people down but it doesn't stop me from saying anything about it.

Would this group stop me from paying my respects to someone who is being buried?

NOPE not at all. It wouldn't bother me in the least because I can't connect what I'm intend to do with the actions of those who are idiots. TO me funerals are not for the dead, they are for the living, you pay the respect of the actual burial but if you want to respect their life and if there is a sacrifice, you do so by remembering them - not worrying about what others are doing.

I know that many in here to NOT agree with my idea that EVERY freedom carries a RESPONSIBILITY. These people are RUDE and disrespectful of others feelings, rights and beliefs. That, in my book, is NOT showing responsibility.

Well I also agree there is a responsibility but that also means that for those who are offended (which is an emotional response to something), there is no right not to be offended. Like if Larry Flynt has a section of nude nuns, it is offensive to a great many people but so what. He has the right to do that, even though it is in very bad taste or that some school kid that gets a hold of the rag and sees his teacher topless.

By the way, I believe that there is a HUGE difference between traffic noise and a deliberate attempt to disrupt a religious ceremony.

I sort of disagree. I don't see any difference. When people speak of silence, it isn't about others around them but those who are part of the service.

Agreed. In some of the more recent "protests" by the Phelps cult they have complied with the 1000-foot rule and other restrictions that keep them out of sight and earshot of the funeral and those attending it. However, I believe there have been instances when this was not the case - situations where the cult signs, chants, and obscenities were clearly seen and heard by those attending the funeral and thereby disrupting their religious practice. What needs to happen is the individual states passing legislation addressing this type of activity.

Well I understand what you are getting at but again we don't have a right NOT to be offended. If they were in the face of the people at the funeral, meaning actually in their face - yep that is a problem but standing 100 feet away or even 20 feet away ... well too bad.

IF you want legislation passed, then there has to be safeguards, it has to be specific to a group and purpose of that group but I can tell you that even though the SC sort of left that door open, they have had other rulings that limit the state and city with regards of protests and stifling free speech. I think one of them had to do with some town in Illinois and something with people in uniforms?

So what you're saying is that certain Christians are "interfering" with these muslims' practice of their religion when they prevent things like the genital mutilation of teenage girls, the stoning of adulterous women and death to anyone believed to have blasphemed the prophet?

Nope not at all, because stoning and mutilation is illegal here and I have yet to hear anyone being publicly stoned here. What happens in other countries is does not matter, what does matter is when we take other religion's laws and make blanket statements on how bad it is and how it is taking over the country when in fact it isn't. Many react to it as an attack on their religion and create more hatred.

Blaspheme?

Seriously, you ever hear some Christians speak when someone speaks of Jesus negativity?

I mean talk about ... never mind ...

I don't think that any court in the country is going to allow this kind of barbarian activity just because some people claim it's included in their religious practices. Religious practices that are contrary to our constitution and our laws are not tolerated in this country, and for good reason.

So what's qualifies as barbaric other than what you have posted?

Polygamy?

Circumcision?

Homosexuality?

One of these is illegal, which is kind of odd because if we allow homosexual marriages, why not polygamy for those who want to practice it?

How about Animal sacrifices?

This happens in NYC and Chicago. Shouldn't that be illegal?

 

[Pilgrim]

So what's qualifies as barbaric other than what you have posted?
Polygamy?
Circumcision?
Homosexuality?

Are you serious? First of all, the Koran (Sharia law) allows polygamy and concubines, but it's how the wives are allowed to be treated by the husbands that's barbaric. Secondly - you're surely not comparing the act of female circumcision to that of the male. I realize that this female mutilation is not addressed in the Koran and is mostly found among African muslims, but it's the fact that the males are allowed to do this (among other things) to women that's barbaric. Thirdly, of course you know what the Koran says about homosexuals (they should be executed). The homosexuality is not barbaric - just what sharia law says should be done to them.
We've just wandered way off the original subject matter of this thread, so I'm stopping there. But suffice it to say, outlawing Sharia is in no way interfering with the legitimate practice of a religion.

 

[greg334]

Are you serious?

Of course I am very serious.

First of all, the Koran (Sharia law) allows polygamy and concubines, but it's how the wives are allowed to be treated by the husbands that's barbaric.

AND?

Practiced here?

Nope.

And neither is the rampant 'barbaric' treatment of wives here in the states.

You ever been in a Muslim home ... ever?

I've been in a lot of them and yet have I ever seen anything that resembles abuse from the husband, if anything even in strict Muslim homes, the wife has a lot of say on what goes on and does so openly.

BUT with that said, oh I don't know ... let's see ... a lot of Christian sects follow the Christian "laws" pretty closely, like say the husband's ultimate authority and the open abuse that takes place based on bible passages.

Ephesians 5:22-24
Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Even in the Greek form, it says pretty much the same thing.

Barbaric?

yep by todays standards.

How about Hindus?

You know their practices can be considered barbaric?

So I can't help but wonder where people justify one set of religion's laws but will d*mn another.

Secondly - you're surely not comparing the act of female circumcision to that of the male. I realize that this female mutilation is not addressed in the Koran and is mostly found among African muslims, but it's the fact that the males are allowed to do this (among other things) to women that's barbaric.

Well actually a lot of people seem to think the same thing as I do. A lot of people won't put their male child through the pain and "suffering" because of some sort of religious rite. Not to bring up the medical thing, it has to do with people's perception that it is a painful and unneeded procedure. There are even a few groups that promote not getting the males circumcised because it is barbaric.

The real funny thing is that the female mutilation issue isn't any Muslim thing as much as it is a cultural thing. Many tribes and cultures in both Africa and Asia have issues with female mutilation. When I was in Africa, that was a big issue among those who were not Muslim, there was a lot of work that the docs did with infection and problems with child birth, not a Muslim in sight. I don't think you made a trip to Kenya or Mozambique but it happens a lot there.

Thirdly, of course you know what the Koran says about homosexuals (they should be executed). The homosexuality is not barbaric - just what sharia law says should be done to them.

Yep it surely does say that and many have looked for into the bible and saw something against homosexuality but you do know that there is a rather large homosexual community among Arabs and Muslims?

I don't see the killing of people here in the area.

I do remember reading that some where in the bible belt there were some beatings and maybe even a killing or two of those homosexuals by 'good old church going folk'.

We've just wandered way off the original subject matter of this thread, so I'm stopping there. But suffice it to say, outlawing Sharia is in no way interfering with the legitimate practice of a religion.

I agree to a point that we did drift but with a legitimate reason. The issue is freedom to practice a religion of one's choice without interference and the freedom to protest, not about Muslims and their beliefs.

However the problem arises that even considering outlawing a part of another religion screams hypocrisy which is sad. There is a point to be made because of that comment, where people who follow Jesus scream about losing their rights and their ability to worship as they feel they have the right to do, like in a class room or in a public place. They seem not to get the fact that if they expect that to go away or there not be an attack on their 'Religion', they can't be calling for outlawing part of another religion based on their own fears and in many cases hatred.

Again I stand with the freedom and rights of everyone, not be selective as many seem to do.

 

[witness23]

Baptists exploring their religious feelings?

So much to reply to, yet so little time. Except for the above. Did you really read, "exploring" in my post? You must have, considering that you went on a diatribe about others "exploring" their religious freedoms, rights, and different religions being "more right" than others. Wow.

 

[Black Sheep]

"Ephesians 5:22-24
Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

An interesting thread, but some points being missed here. The book of Ephesians was written around 60 A.D. and the interpretation of this verse has evolved as has the Christian religion. Very few marriage ceremonies even use this verse any more. Sharia law has not evolved, and the radical Muslims who practice it today in Pakistan and Iran for instance, stick to the literal interpretation as it was originally written. No, we don't see stonings in the US because it's illegal. Were Sharia allowed to be practiced that wouldn't be the case. Here's the deal - if the radical Islamists got their way, Sharia would be imposed on Muslims in the US and things would be treated like they were in the 12th century and we would see the same atrocities happening here as are happening in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran. Fortunately, our constitution recognizes the inalienable rights of all men which is contrary to the tenets of the Muslim religion. The interpretations of the Bible have evolved - Sharia has not.

Oh, one other thing. The comment about comparing circumcision of infant males to the butchery of teenage girls in African cultures? Absolutely absurd. And the killing of homosexuals by good ole church going folk that you might have "read about somewhere"?? Show us the article and then tell us whether or not they went to prison for it. This pious lecturing to the unwashed masses who presumably don't have Muslims for best friends gets a bit old. Sure there are radical Christians and radical Muslims. But you don't see the radical Christians blowing up buildings or sending suicidal bombers into public places to kill innocent women and children, or rioting in the streets because of some goofy cartoons. Here again, the difference between the Phelps cult (they are not Baptists by the way) and Hamas or Al-Queda is that Phelps' group stands out in the street and holds up obnoxious signs near a funeral. The Muslim radicals go into the funeral wearing belts full of ball bearings and plastic explosives. Fortunately we haven't seen this in the US.....YET.

 

[greg334]

Blacksheep, et. al.

Don't want to offend all of you but the problem I'm trying to point out an issue that many support Freedom of Religion only on their terms and it has been proven a few times in this thread.

That problem is when we speak of fundamentalist in other religions, we purposefully overlook our own.

Regardless how you slice and dice the issue, Christianity is not immune to the same reasoning and same actions as in Islam. Both have their version of fundamentalist, both have violent and non-violent and both have their conservative and liberal followers. We accept the bible thumping, in your face people as their way of expressing their beliefs but they are in many ways as dangerous as those who are saying Sharia Law should be here. These are the people who are instant to defend their interpretation of the Bible even if it wrong or conflicts with our laws as a nation. Phelps and his group are just one of many many who are worst than Phelps. They are both the same when you look at the individuals, no difference - same purpose, same hatred and same wants to limit the other's freedoms.

The Christian sees a Muslim as backwards, in some cases barbaric and unable to be reasonable. They claim that Muslims are living in the 12th century because their holy book hasn't evolved to fit the times but at the same time the same Christians ignore their own who also live in past centuries and with what many consider barbaric laws.

The Muslim sometimes sees Christians as victims of a corrupt power holders, hijacking their holy book for political gain. Their position has been clear, interpretation leads people astray, away from God. Their Holy book haven't been interpreted to fit people because of the strong belief that the word of God as passed down by their prophet has to stay in the same language, so forcing the person who wants to be closer to God to make the effort to read the actual words of God.

Both religions used the same human qualities to live by, both worship the same God and both are based on one single religion.

When we speak of freedoms, our constitution, and we want to limit those freedoms for others, we cut our own throats, we become the same as the worst any religion has to offer.

 

[dieseldiva]

Both religions used the same human qualities to live by, both worship the same God and both are based on one single religion.

Muslims are accepting the Trinity??

John 14:6 (King James Version)

6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

 

[Black Sheep]

The Christian sees a Muslim as backwards, in some cases barbaric and unable to be reasonable. They claim that Muslims are living in the 12th century because their holy book hasn't evolved to fit the times but at the same time the same Christians ignore their own who also live in past centuries and with what many consider barbaric laws.

We're talking a matter of degree here. I can think of no instances where Christian fundamentalists are killing innocents on a mass scale (call it a Crusade if you will) that compares to the Muslims' jihadism. Also, the mainstream Christians are a lot less tolerant of their violent radicals. If a Christian version of Al-Quaeda popped up in the States they would not find safe harbor in their communities, they would be widely and vocally denounced and the criminals would wind up dead or in prison. On the other hand, the mainstream Muslims and their clergy lay silent while their radicals wreak havoc on a worldwide basis. For further enlightenment:
Rep. Peter King to hold hearings on 'radicalization' of American Muslims, critics fear witchhunt - New York Daily News

 

[witness23]

Originally Posted by greg334
Both religions used the same human qualities to live by, both worship the same God and both are based on one single religion.

Muslims are accepting the Trinity??

And people wonder why Christians have such a bad name.

 

[greg334]

Blacksheep, I understand that you may not get this but in my lifetime, Christians have done their part in killing in mass, the most recent has been in the Balkans with Orthodox Christians killing both Catholics and Muslims with the target being Muslims. A little beyond my lifetime the Germans did just this in the name of their religion which amazingly the Nazi leaders actually embraced Christianity to maintain the hate toward the Jews among some of the population, using one excuse that the Jews killed Jesus. We tend to forget they targeted Catholics and other religions too.

I feel that is all eqaul to the Muslims who are calling for the killing of non-Mulsims and taking in account the number killed, the Muslims still have a long way to go. This also includes the terrorist effort here to end abortion, you can say that killing a doctor or bombing a clinic isn't the same as say someone running into a group of people with a car but it seems like any killing in the name of God is bad, right?

As for the trinity, this is an interesting thing because God didn't come down and say this was the case, man decided and that with all indications was a political move to take a step away from the base religion, Judaism. When that happen there was serious issues among those who were making those decisions while some within that group was thrown out of their religion. A number of religions today do not believe in the trinity and they are christian and have been persecuted for their beliefs. One such group is alive and doing well, but seem to be looked down upon by many who have type cast them into a certain mold, like the Muslims.

 

[dieseldiva]

And people wonder why Christians have such a bad name.

Excuse me....it was a legitimate question and are you throwing stones?

 

[witness23]

Excuse me....it was a legitimate question and are you throwing stones?

I'm not throwing stones, just pointing out an observation that you reveal over and over. One word. Intolerance.

If you believe that we are all made in God's image, then everyone should be treated with the same respect you have for God, even if you disagree. Jesus, throughout the Bible associated with undesirable's such as tax collector's, prostitutes, sinners, idolaters, the poor, drunkards, thieves, adulters, etc, etc., and he still showed love, compassion, respect and most importantly....forgiveness.

What happens a lot on EO, especially in the Soapbox, is if you disagree with someone you are treated with disrespect, made fun of, castigated, and shut down by the powers to be.

 

[dieseldiva]

I'm not throwing stones, just pointing out an observation that you reveal over and over. One word. Intolerance.

If you believe that we are all made in God's image, then everyone should be treated with the same respect you have for God, even if you disagree. Jesus, throughout the Bible associated with undesirable's such as tax collector's, prostitutes, sinners, idolaters, the poor, drunkards, thieves, adulters, etc, etc., and he still showed love, compassion, respect and most importantly....forgiveness.

What happens a lot on EO, especially in the Soapbox, is if you disagree with someone you are treated with disrespect, made fun of, castigated, and shut down by the powers to be.

Yes but....what you said was directly pointed at me, seeing how you quoted me......and said......

And people wonder why Christians have such a bad name.

Tolerance is one thing, defending The Word is another.

 

[jaminjim]

Originally Posted by greg334
Both religions used the same human qualities to live by, both worship the same God and both are based on one single religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dieseldiva
Muslims are accepting the Trinity??

And people wonder why Christians have such a bad name.

I have to admit I don't understand the meaning of your reply either, care to enlighten?