Westboro Baptist church gets their asses fucking chased out of tornado damaged town.

[catbarf]

[QUOTE=gk99;44502509]Banned? Of course not: but it's still your own damn fault when you get punched in the nose for it.[/QUOTE]

So if a group of pro-gay marriage activists are protesting in the South and get attacked and beaten by a group of conservative Christians who find it outrageous and offensive, then it's their own fault for getting attacked?

Or does this principle only apply to people whose beliefs you happen to disagree with? Is physically harming people because you feel offended by their words always okay, or just when it happens to line up with the moral values that [i]you[/i] find acceptable?

[Zero-Point]

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44505117]Schools are government institutions generally speaking. The government and religion are to have no official relationship or interference with one another. School prayers is a direct violation of this.[/QUOTE]

Prayers endorsed directly by the schools, yes, but remember, I'm talking about kids praying before football games and lunch, purely by their own volition.

[ADogX]

I don't normally post on threads, but i'll say this. idc about the whole law crap that protects WBC. they're a hate group no matter what. they're disturbing the peace, even if they're legally protesting (if that's what you REALLY want to call it). In the end, we all hate them, and anyone who defends them is stupid. fuck them. I'm an Atheist, but I hope they burn in the very same hell they believe in

[daschnek]

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;44502651]Why not? They've already banned prayer in schools and during foot-ball games because somebody got their rectum ruined because "RABBLE RABBLE I DON'T BELIEVE IN THAT BOLOGNA RABBLE RARGH GRR".
And just for note, I'm not religious but even I find that to be complete and utter bullshit.[/QUOTE]

As far as I know, nobody in the US is banned from praying in public school, but rather, prayer that goes on in school simply cannot be led by the school or forced by the school, which is perfectly reasonable since a state run school is a part of a secular institution.

[Zero-Point]

[QUOTE=daschnek;44514056]As far as I know, nobody in the US is banned from praying in public school, but rather, prayer that goes on in school simply cannot be led by the school or forced by the school, which is perfectly reasonable since a state run school is a part of a secular institution.[/QUOTE]

It's been ages since I read that article, at least 15 years, so you might be right on that, and if so, I apologize.

[daschnek]

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;44514170]It's been ages since I read that article, at least 15 years, so you might be right on that, and if so, I apologize.[/QUOTE]

I think you're thinking of [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Fe_Independent_School_Dist._v._Doe"]this case[/URL] in which the prayer was student led, but ultimately school sponsored since it was being broadcast to everyone at a school football game.

I was thinking more along the lines of people praying in school in general, where the school banning people from doing so would be just as unconstitutional as the school forcing it on them.

[Explosions]

[QUOTE=ADogX;44513765]I don't normally post on threads, but i'll say this. idc about the whole law crap that protects WBC. they're a hate group no matter what. they're disturbing the peace, even if they're legally protesting (if that's what you REALLY want to call it). In the end, we all hate them, and anyone who defends them is stupid. fuck them. I'm an Atheist, but I hope they burn in the very same hell they believe in[/QUOTE]

I'd like to think that I'm not stupid.

I just encountered another relevant example in this debate. For the past few days, an anti-abortion campaign has been running and protesting throughout my college campus. They hired billboard trucks to drive around with images of aborted fetuses and calls to support anti-abortion candidates in the coming elections. They had people standing on corners passing out flyers and pocket Bibles. There was a main section of their protest that had a large display with more fetus pictures. Some of their boards said "abortion is genocide" and that people who abort children are "murders and child killers."

Now I cannot speak from any personal experience in this case, since I've never had and never can have an abortion, and I have yet to be in a situation where I would be involved. But I can pretty well predict that this type of protest and campaigning would be [b]extremely[/b] offensive to some people. Many people might be outraged by the conduct and context of what these people were expressing. So, does that give people the right to attack these protesters? Should the government ban their protest because it has the potential (and already does) offend people greatly? I call bullshit on both of those. Rights do not end where offense begins.

[IGotWorms]

But Fred Phelps died. If Fred Phelps is dead then...using Westborian logic doesn't that he mean he supported fags?

[Silence]

This is probably one of the few times I can say this, but I kinda agree with explosions on this one.

You can't justify attacking someone for exercising their 1st amendment rights, no matter the message. You can't even (legally) stop or attack KKK members from protesting as long as they aren't breaking any other laws.

Everyone has the right to free speech, no matter what the content is, and the government can't prosecute you or restrict you from it.

You COULD punch someone in the face for saying something you don't like, but you would be charged with it because you don't have the RIGHT to physically attack someone, no matter the message.

I do disagree with explosions, however, where he expresses that their free speech was being suppressed. They were not forced to leave by anyone. They left because they were met with a bigger force countering their picket with a protest of them being there. Had they been threatened with violence, then I could see explosions point on the matter, but I didn't see any of that from the video, and you can't really tell if anyone is threatening the use of force.

But logically and legally, he is right.

[Zero-Point]

[QUOTE=IGotWorms;44514395]But Fred Phelps died. If Fred Phelps is dead then...using Westborian logic doesn't that he mean he supported fags?[/QUOTE]

That explains why he was excommunicated.