College Student Sues Over His Anti Gay Marriage Speech - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-18-2009, 07:35 AM   #31
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 08:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by partygirlvox View Post
No, it's just what I'm used to - I'm always so shocked at stuff people post in here, and it's because we have such tight laws in Britain against inciting racial hatred, against hate crimes and hate speech... that I'm genuinely shocked to see that in a newspaper. A leaflet distributed by some small group, perhaps, but not a newspaper.

I don't agree with this argument at all. If anyone is inciting hatred towards any ethnic group or minority, then I don't think there's a time or a place for it in the public domain.
Do you think that the state has a role in censoring newspapers that publish advertisements such as the one posted, or articles which criticise homosexuality as immoral and unnatural? If that is the case in what sense do you have a free press?

Do you think that a person has the right to say that they hate gay people, short of inciting violence? Are other groups deserving of this type of protection, such as Africans, Asians, and Scots? Does ethnicity include religious groups such as Jews, Muslims, and Mormons? When religious leaders quote their version of revelation is that protected free speech, or can they be prosecuted for hate speech? Can the Bible be banned for its anti-gay content, or the Koran?

Do you feel that your being shocked, the limits of your taste, are roughly in line with what should be treated as acceptable? What do you think should happen to speech which is unacceptable.

What is your opinion of the quote misattributed to Voltaire
Quote:
I disagree with what you say but I will defend to death your right to say
Is that out of line in multicultural Britain?

A battery of rhetorical questions, but they illustrate a point, what makes your right to affirm gay rights supersede a bigot being allowed to say or print that they have a problem with man on man action?

As a matter of record I consider myself
- Pro-gay, in that I think that showing "take your jesus off my penis" to a guy who likes guys is perfectly normal behaviour.
- Supportive of free speech, I approve of the right to display various blasphemies including those that I find offensive (atheists have no morals, the atheist burn in hell business is a rather empty threat).
- Skeptical of people that want to directly run other peoples lives, that includes those that would use government force to silence opponents (a type of censorship).
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2009, 08:04 AM   #32
pgv
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,979
Local Time: 11:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
Do you think that the state has a role in censoring newspapers that publish advertisements such as the one posted, or articles which criticise homosexuality as immoral and unnatural?

Do you think that a person has the right to say that they hate gay people, short of inciting violence?

Do you feel that your being shocked, the limits of your taste, are roughly in line with what should be treated as acceptable? What do you think should happen to speech which is unacceptable.

What is your opinion of the quote misattributed to VoltaireIs that out of line in multicultural Britain?
The limits of my taste? Don't patronise me, A Wanderer, but this is no limit on my taste - this is no matter of taste, but an advert inciting hatred towards a (not so minor) minority. I do not agree with this being published - for it's emotive language, it's use of the word 'shame,' the way this clearly aims to create hate and violence. If this were an objective argument, albeit one 'not to my taste,' then I would have no problem with it's publication - people need to have all the facts on which to base their own opinion. But this isn't merely presenting facts with a bias. And when it concerns something that the public needs to know about - that the public votes on - then no, I do not agree with hate filled propaganda. On either end of the spectrum.

And yes, you can throw in a Voltaire quote, but that's not applicable to the Britain I live in today - it's an ideal which to aspire not, and Britain isn't there yet.
__________________

__________________
pgv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2009, 08:21 AM   #33
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 08:40 AM
I agree that it is hateful, I disagree that it is explicitly inciting violence, and I think your apparent willingness to use state force in order to shut it down betrays a softly authoritarian attitude.

I think they have a constitutionally protected right to print it, and I love the idea of that right, and in the end more freedom delivers better outcomes (even though the cost is having intolerant fuckers mouthing off).

As far as the free exchange of ideas not having a place in modern Britain, I'd be inclined to agree, although if I lived there I wouldn't be proud of that fact (you have the Archbishop of Canterbury pushing for laws that could punish atheists for offending religious sensibilities).

I would appreciate the opinions of two posters who have the status of being both American (one now technically Canadian-ish) and gay weigh in on whether those ads should be censored. I can't muster any gay credibility (at least until they find a gay gene and I can fix my heterosexuality) and I would love to see how others can be both pro-gay and pro-freedom of speech.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2009, 11:57 AM   #34
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 10:40 PM
Has this been posted on this debate before? It's brilliant.


Why churches fear gay marriage

The crusade for Proposition 8 was fueled by the broken American family, explains gay Catholic author Richard Rodriguez.

By Jeanne Carstensen
Nov. 25, 2008 | For author Richard Rodriguez, no one is talking about the real issues behind Proposition 8.

While conservative churches are busy trying to whip up another round of culture wars over same-sex marriage, Rodriguez says the real reason for their panic lies elsewhere: the breakdown of the traditional heterosexual family and the shifting role of women in society and the church itself. As the American family fractures and the majority of women choose to live without men, churches are losing their grip on power and scapegoating gays and lesbians for their failures.

Rodriguez, who is Mexican-American, gay and a practicing Catholic, refuses to let any single part of himself define the whole. Born in San Francisco in 1944 and raised by his Spanish-speaking Mexican immigrant parents to embrace mainstream American culture and the English language, he went on to study literature and religion at Stanford and Columbia. His first book, "The Hunger of Memory: The Education of Richard Rodriguez," explores his journey from working-class immigrant to a fully assimilated intellectual -- angering many Latinos with his view that English fluency is essential. "Days of Obligation: An Argument With My Mexican Father," which was a Pulitzer Prize finalist in 1993, continued his investigation into how family, culture, religion, race, sexuality and other strands of his life all contribute to the whole, a complex "brownness" of contradictions and ironies. "Brown: The Last Discovery of America" completes the trilogy -- but not his insatiable intellectual curiosity, which he is now shining on monotheism.

Rodriguez' stinging critiques of religious hypocrisy are all the richer for his passionate love of Catholicism and the Most Holy Redeemer parish in San Francisco, where he and his partner of 28 years are devoted members. Today, Rodriguez is at work on a new book about the monotheistic "desert religions" -- Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Ever since Sept. 11, "when havoc descended in the name of the desert God," Rodriguez said in one of his Peabody Award-winning radio commentaries for PBS's News Hour, he has been trying to understand the strands of darkness that run through these religions.

Salon spoke to Richard Rodriguez by phone at his home in San Francisco.

What was your reaction to California voters' going heavily for Obama and also passing Proposition 8, banning gay marriage?

I was like a lot of other Americans at the moment when the West Coast tipped the balance in favor of Obama. I didn't so much think it represented the end of racism but the possibility of change. At the same time, I also knew that large numbers of Californians in religious communities were voting against gay marriage and that Latinos and blacks were continuing to take part in this terribly tragedy. We persecute each other. The very communities that get discriminated against discriminate against other Americans.

The Spanish language newspaper La Opinión called the results an "embarrassment," saying "California still has two faces." Do you agree?

La Opinión represents the opinion of a lot of Latinos who are more educated and -- what should I say? -- more cosmopolitan. But Latinos in both my family and the Catholic Church belong to a more traditional America. This is a troubling aspect of the way our country is formed right now. It is a time of great change but also a time when people are afraid of change.

You said recently the real issue behind the anti-gay marriage movement is the crisis in the family. What do you mean?

American families are under a great deal of stress. The divorce rate isn't declining, it's increasing. And the majority of American women are now living alone. We are raising children in America without fathers. I think of Michael Phelps at the Olympics with his mother in the stands. His father was completely absent. He was negligible; no one refers to him, no one noticed his absence.

The possibility that a whole new generation of American males is being raised by women without men is very challenging for the churches. I think they want to reassert some sort of male authority over the order of things. I think the pro-Proposition 8 movement was really galvanized by an insecurity that churches are feeling now with the rise of women.

Monotheistic religions feel threatened by the rise of feminism and the insistence, in many communities, that women take a bigger role in the church. At the same time that women are claiming more responsibility for their religious life, they are also moving out of traditional roles as wife and mother. This is why abortion is so threatening to many religious people -- it represents some rejection of the traditional role of mother.

In such a world, we need to identify the relationship between feminism and homosexuality. These movements began, in some sense, to achieve visibility alongside one another. I know a lot of black churches take offense when gay activists say that the gay movement is somehow analogous to the black civil rights movement. And while there is some relationship between the persecution of gays and the anti-miscegenation laws in the United States, I think the true analogy is to the women's movement. What we represent as gays in America is an alternative to the traditional male-structured society. The possibility that we can form ourselves sexually -- even form our sense of what a sex is -- sets us apart from the traditional roles we were given by our fathers.

I think Proposition 8 was also galvanized by insecurity around gay families.

I agree. But the real challenge to the family right now is male irresponsibility and misbehavior toward women. If the Hispanic Catholic and evangelical churches really wanted to protect the family, they should address the issue of wife beating in Hispanic families and the misbehaviors of the father against the mother. But no, they go after gay marriage. It doesn't take any brilliance to notice that this is hypocrisy of such magnitude that you blame the gay couple living next door for the fact that you've just beaten your wife.

The pro-8 campaign calls itself the Protect Family Movement, even though the issue of family was the very reason gays needed to have marriage. There are partners in gay unions now who have children, and those children need to be protected. If my partner and I had children, either through a previous marriage or because we adopted them, I would need to be able to take them to the emergency room. I would need to be able to protect them with the parental rights that marriage would give me. It was for the benefit of the family that marriage was extended to homosexuals.

Religions have the capacity for being noble and ennobling but they are also the expression of some of the darkest impulses in us -- to go after the "other." For Christians, if the other isn't the Muslim, it's the homosexual. That is the most discouraging part.

Speaking of hypocrisy, churches have plenty of sexual skeletons in their closet.

Right. The Mormon Church has this incredible notoriety in America for polygamy and has been persecuted because of it. The very church that became notorious because of polygamy is now insisting that marriage is one man and one woman. That is, at least, an irony of history. But as a number of Mormon women friends of mine say, the same church that espouses the centrality of family in their lives is also the church that urges them to reject their gay children.

Then there is the Roman Catholic Church, my own church, which has just come off this extraordinary season of sexual scandal and misbehavior in the rectory against children. The church is barely out of the court and it's trying to assume the role of governor of sexual behavior, having just proved to America its inability to govern its own sexual behavior.

Look at the evangelicals. In their insistence that people be born again, they know Americans are broken. In their circus-tent suburban churches, you find 10,000 people on a Sunday morning. You find people who have been divorced, people who have had drug experiences, people who have been in jail. These churches touch upon a dream that people can put our lives back together again.

Now these churches are going after homosexuals as a way of insisting on their own propriety. They are insisting that they have a role to play in the general society as moral guardians, when what we have seen in the recent past is just the opposite. I mean, it's one thing for the churches to insist on their right to define the sacrament of marriage for their own members. But it's quite another for them to insist that they have a right to define the relationships of people outside their communities. That's really what's most troubling about Proposition 8. It was a deliberate civic intrusion by the churches.

I wonder if these churches sense they're losing some of the influence they've had for the past eight years.

To my knowledge, the churches have not accepted responsibility for the Bush catastrophe. Having claimed, in some cases, that Bush was divinely inspired and his election was the will of God, they have failed to explain why the last eight years have been so catastrophic for America.

Now I think evangelicals are falling back on issues that have been reliable for them in the past. Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister, who said that children of immigrants should be educated, was essentially frightened away from that position by Mitt Romney. The tentativeness of the evangelicals on immigration only allowed them to be more vociferous on the gay issue. That's traditionally easy for them -- to go after the sinner. But it doesn't convince me of their ascendancy; it merely convinces me that they are retreating. They don't know how to extend their agenda beyond gay marriage and abortion.

There's going to be an ongoing legal battle over Proposition 8. How do you think gay activists should proceed?


I think gay activists should be very careful with this issue. We should not present ourselves as enemies of religion. I am not prepared to leave the Roman Catholic Church over this issue. The Catholic Church is my church. I was a little concerned about the recent protests outside the Los Angeles Mormon temple. I've seen this sort of demonstration escalate into a sort of deliberate exercise of blasphemy.

For example, in the most severe years of the AIDS epidemic, activists from ACT UP went into St. Patrick's Cathedral, took the communion wafer and threw it on the ground. That is exactly the wrong thing to do. One should be respectful of the religious impulse in the world. If we decide to make ourselves anti-religious, we will only lose.

But religious communities must be challenged too. I was in Jerusalem a couple of years ago for Gay Pride. All the leaders of religious communities -- Muslim, Jew and Christian -- were brought together by their mutual animosity toward gay activism to protest the parade. There was the grand patriarch of the Eastern churches, the high rabbi of Jerusalem, the Roman Catholic archbishop, the mullahs, and they were all united in one cause. The police outnumbered the parade participants. One marcher was attacked and stabbed by an Orthodox Jew.

We have to be very clear about male violence within the monotheistic religions. This is a failure within churches and we can't be casual about it. But we can't be casual about the importance of religion either. We need to be both respectful of religion and critical of religion. Otherwise I suspect we won't get very far at all.

What do you think about gay rights as universal rights? Many argue that it's a cultural issue and that specific communities, such as Latinos and blacks, have their own understanding of homosexuality and shouldn't be messed with.

In my own my family, and my parents were not well educated, it would have been impossible for them to have dealt with the words "gay" or "homosexual" in my relationship with them. But there was no way for them to reject me either. I was a member of the family and I couldn't sin my way out of it.

Once my partner became part of my life, he became part of their life too. They didn't want it said, they didn't want it named or defined, but they assumed it and accepted it. At family events, when my partner wasn't there, my mother would get on the phone and call him and insist he come over.

These communities have very intricate ways of dealing with these things and they are not necessarily the highly politicized tactics that you see in traditional middle-class society in America.

I have not been to a Mexican family without some suspicion of homosexuality in children or grandchildren. But people deal with it within the larger context of family. That's why I suspect the revolution will come not from the male church but from how women treat their children, and whether or not women are willing to reject their children. I don't think they are. I saw too many times during the AIDS epidemic that when death came and the disease took its toll, if one parent was there, it was almost always the mother and not the father. That bond is so powerful.

I also think about the role of gays as caregivers to the elderly parent while siblings are too busy with their children. At the Most Holy Redeemer Church in San Francisco, which is the gay Roman Catholic parish, a number of old Irish women essentially adopted the gay parishioners, and were adopted by them, because their children had moved to the suburbs, or Pennsylvania, or Orlando, and were no longer in a position to care for them. That's a bond that no one really talks about.

My partner has taken care of many elderly people over the years. They know who he is and they know who I am. But it's unspoken. I don't know how they voted on Tuesday, but I do think that it is their responsibility now to speak out.

Are you saying individual relationships will ultimately be more powerful than organized religion?

Well, I'm working right now in the Middle East on monotheistic religions because I'm very worried about the direction of religion. Ever since Sept. 11, when I heard that prayer being spoken at the moment the planes hit the World Trade Centers, I realized how much darkness there is in religion compared to how much light there is. I am very much concerned with whether or not these religions can be feminized.

The desert religions -- Judaism, Christianity and Islam -- are male religions. Their perception is that God is a male god and Allah is a male god. If the male is allowed to hold onto the power of God, then I think we are in terrible shape. I think what's coming out of Colorado Springs right now, with people like Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, is either the last or continuing gasp of a male hierarchy in religion. That's what's at stake. And women have a determining role to play. Are they going to go along with this, or are they going to challenge the order?

Well, yes, but then we have the rise of someone like Sarah Palin, who is just one example of how complicated things get in this issue.

Yes, you have Sarah Palin. But you also have women deciding to leave marriages. When a woman decides to leave the kitchen and seek a career outside the family, when a woman decides not to take on the name of her husband, when a woman wants to be more than simply the mother of children, when she wants to have some place in the world that is not defined by her family or her husband, that seems to suggest something comparable to what gays experience when they come out of the closet. Notice that both those metaphors of getting out of the kitchen and getting out of the closet are domestic images.

But are you saying Palin represents this?

I'm not that kind of optimist!

It does seem she wants to have a career separate from the family, but in many ways she embodies the old conservative order.

Clearly, what you say is true. I don't see women challenging the male order of things in every case. Wives tolerate all kinds of behavior of fathers toward their children. But I do think it's important that some woman are starting to challenge that. The divorce rate suggests that women are not happy with the relationship they have with men. And whatever that unhappiness is, I would like people to know that, as a gay man, I'm not responsible for what's wrong with heterosexual marriage. On the other hand, whatever is wrong with the heterosexual marriage does have some implication for the world I live in. Women are redefining sexuality in a way that's going to make it easier for me to be a gay man.

The formal role of women is also undergoing change in some churches, right?

That's right. The Episcopal Church in America is now under the leadership of a woman. Feminism is going to change a great deal. The most radical people in the Roman Catholic Church are women. They're challenging everything from the priesthood to the male God to what it means to be married. I don't expect to see gay marriage enter these conservative institutions in my lifetime. But I do see change.

I belong to a Catholic parish in San Francisco, where my partner and I are acknowledged by the other people in the parish as a couple. We take communion together, the priests know who we are, they're supportive of who we are, and what we are, and they see us in various roles -- giving eulogies to dead friends but also helping to baptize little babies. We're very much a part of that community. That's why I'm not prepared to lose it because some archbishop in Colorado or cardinal in Los Angeles is behind Proposition 8. It is not my church that they're talking about, it's not even my experience of love.
__________________
AliEnvy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2009, 01:34 PM   #35
War Child
 
ShipOfFools's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 814
Local Time: 06:40 PM
No matters what your views are, if you're giving a public speech, you should consider who your audience is. It was wrong of the student to give an anti-gay speech when he probably knew there were gay students, or people who were friends of gay people, in the audience.

I'm with the professor on this one.
__________________
ShipOfFools is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2009, 06:27 PM   #36
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,886
Local Time: 05:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShipOfFools View Post
No matter what your views are, if you're giving a public speech, you should consider who your audience is. It was wrong of the student to give an anti-gay speech when he probably knew there were gay students, or people who were friends of gay people, in the audience.
"Don't offend some in the audience" was not a requirement of any public speaking class I've been a part of.


If the student's position was poorly argued, and it sounds like it might have been, he should receive a poor grade.
__________________
Bluer White is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2009, 06:29 PM   #37
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 04:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShipOfFools View Post
No matters what your views are, if you're giving a public speech, you should consider who your audience is. It was wrong of the student to give an anti-gay speech when he probably knew there were gay students, or people who were friends of gay people, in the audience.

I'm with the professor on this one.

Because everyone has the right not to be offended?

Then does the teacher not have an equal duty to protect a Christian student from hearing the Lord's name taken in vain or that crosses in his class be worn respectfully and not as costume jewelry?

My fear is we are raising the 2nd generation that now believes opposition to any tenets of their ideology can be based only on bigotry or ignorance.

"All opposition to same-sex marriage is hate speech" is just as extreme, offensive, closed-minded and factually wrong as "God hates faggots." In between the two there is a real discussion to be had by a self-determining people about marriage, family and society and where civil people can disagree.

It's like the Patriot Act. The rights of the individual in relationship to the state's duty to protect them was a legitimate issue but somehow all we heard was the hyperbole of "GWB is a torture president" and "habius corpus RIP" vs "traitor !!" and "treason !!"

There is a place for outrage and even censure in public discourse but dissent and criticism have their place as well. Freedom of speech works both ways.
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2009, 06:29 PM   #38
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 11:40 PM
He apparently failed the assignement. That he rightly received a bad grade for and was interrupted.
But it was a serious mistake by the professor to insult him when interrupting.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2009, 06:40 PM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 04:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by partygirlvox View Post
No, it's just what I'm used to - I'm always so shocked at stuff people post in here, and it's because we have such tight laws in Britain against inciting racial hatred, against hate crimes and hate speech... that I'm genuinely shocked to see that in a newspaper. A leaflet distributed by some small group, perhaps, but not a newspaper.

I don't agree with this argument at all. If anyone is inciting hatred towards any ethnic group or minority, then I don't think there's a time or a place for it in the public domain.
Quote:
LONDON, Feb. 13 (UPI) -- A controversial Dutch politician has been denied entry to Britain for a showing of his anti-Muslim film to the House of Lords, lawmakers said Friday.

Geert Wilders, a member of the Netherlands parliament, had been invited to Westminster by a member of the House of Lords to show a 17-minute film "Fitna," in which the Koran is described as a "fascist book," the Times of London reported.

But British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith told Wilders not to come because his opinions would threaten security. Wilders came anyway, flying from Amsterdam to London where he was taken into custody and advised he was being sent back home.
I love England... but we aren't England... not yet.
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2009, 06:51 PM   #40
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 11:40 PM
The US did the same to Cat Stevens, or now Yusuf Islam, in 2004.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2009, 07:05 PM   #41
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 08:40 AM
Wilders is no poster boy for free speech (he wants to ban the koran), and he does have ties to fascist groups, but I don't see how it is directly comparable to the US blocking Yusaf Islam during 2004.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2009, 07:24 PM   #42
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 05:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Because everyone has the right not to be offended?


is this really what we're talking about here?

it's quite sad to me that you seem to think that being a bigot is an inherent part of the free practice of your religion.

is the practice of religion -- as you and said speaker seem to see it -- the same thing as free speech? do we let people do whatever they want -- like take multiple wives -- because of their freedom of religion?

we have laws, and the religious have to obey them even at the expense of their view of whatever their free practice is.

what would have happened had a student delivered a speech on how blacks were stupid and based this on phrenology? what would have happened had student given a speech warning students about the Yellow Peril that was sweeping the west coast? about how Jews have long noses that enable them to sniff out whether or not you've got money in your pockets and big brains that they'll use to swindle you out of your last nickel?

because such free speech is about as coherent, informed, and responsible as whatever you seem to think Christianity says about the status of legal marriage in the United States.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2009, 07:32 PM   #43
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 08:40 AM
Here is an experiment in free speech, USA versus UK
Quote:
This is the full text of the Telegraph's correspondence with the Westboro Baptist Church, about its plan to stage a picket in Britain for the first time. The church has threatened to demonstrate outside the staging of anti-homophobia play The Laramie Project at a school theatre in Basingstoke, Hampshire on Friday.

1) Is this your first picket in the UK?

1. It is the first actual picket. We have been preaching by so many means to the UK for years. The arm of the Lord our God is not shortened by oceans and things, all of which, he created, and all of which he knew about when he considered these last hours of the very last days of all.

2) Are you flying across to Britain, or is the picket being carried out by members in Britain? If you are flying over, how many protesters are you expecting and when are you arriving?

2. Considering that your nation has tried in many ways, including with draconian laws to shut up the Word of God from OFF your landscape, and to make it a crime to plainly say what the STANDARDS of GOD are, (e.g. THOU SHALT NOT lie with mankind as with womankind, it is abomination or THOU SHALT NOT commit adultery, etc.) that I will not be telling any details of our business to get where we need to be.

3) What is your objection to The Laramie Project?

3. We don't object to it, we see it as a glorious preaching moment. It creates a PERFECT backdrop for us to help YOU connect the dots. From the least to the greatest of the people of the UK, including your lamenting and rebellious and disobedient Gordon Brown. You taught your children FOR GENERATIONS now that God is a big fat liar and that HIS standards are on the table to dispose of. You BROKE their moral compass.
The prophet said - WHAT WILL YE DO IN THE END THEREOF. That is to say for you rebels - WHAT will you do when you get to the end of this road of your filthy disobedient manner of life and find that you have incurred the wrath of God and you find that his promises to make your people to be ALTOGETHER WORTHLESS, GOOD FOR ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! And what will you do when you all land in hell FOR EVER where the worm that eats on you NEVER dies and the fire is NEVER quenched and the smoke of your torment ascends up for ever and ever and ever and ever and ever - never ending. So we go to the place where the Laramie Project is playing and you look at us, then you look at the so-called "counter-picketers" and the young people that you have taught that they can live like the very devil himself and it is JUST FINE, because even though the Bible CLEARLY says that God HATES people and it is a perfect hatred - a determination to send the UNREPINENTANT to hell for ever.

So I say - you can look at the faces of each of these groups, and you see that these young people of WBC - as you already know, have no confusion and they have bright shining minds and they are happy and well adjusted and content, living sober, righteous and godly in this present world, while you are busy in GREAT lament over the fact that you have a 15-year-old girl having the baby of a 13-year-old boy (who was 12) when they embarked upon this glorious plan, because YOU brutes taught them that God is a liar. Now suddenly you see that they have NO standards! And then you can add to this pleasant little happy UK family moment that another 13-year-old boy has arisen to dispute paternity! Oh yea baby - you UK rebels truly have it goin on! You are like the Doomed american rebels - just a big shameful MESS!! I say we are dot connecters! THAT is our job! We use the Laramie Project to tell you unambiguously and unapologetically that your DUTY is to fear God and keep his commandments and that you are required to give the glory of all his judgments that he is executing RIGHT UNDER YOUR NOSE, TO HIM! The God Smacks are HIS WORK!

4) Why have you decided to widen your protests to Britain?

4. Here is the reason - from the mouth of the Lord Jesus Christ, to wit: Mt 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. Our God has worked upon the hearts of this little flock of slaughter, and he has, in his mercy permitted us to preach to the whole world! What a glorious and amazing sight that we should be so blessed! We are permitted to say with our beloved brother Paul, our faithful, message of TRUTH in this dark adulterous and sinful generation of rebels against God with NO cause. You KNOW his word - you had great light in your land in the 1600s with the vast array of John's (Knox, Bunyan, Brown, Gill, Trapp, etc., etc.) and you have Bible's everywhere! But your goofy queen and her adulterous whore of a son - YIKES put their hand and you all put your hands to mischief at every turn.

The antichrist is sitting now, in the Whitehouse, the time is SO SHORT - the Lord is coming and this generation is DOOMED! You see the destruction already before your eyes! As filthy america goes down, and The Beast Obama, That Son of Perdition, that Man of Sin gets his power grab on, you will all give over the power of your government to him and when you see that phony façade fall away, and he gets his war on and all your fawning over him turns to great fear, then you can remember these words.
In that hour, if you or any other soul in the UK has a heart to know your God, and you understand that the end is near, you can yet put away your idols, your false gods and your FILTHY manner of life and you can serve the Lord your God in truth! THAT is your only hope.
Thanks for asking!
Shirley Phelps-Roper
Westboro Baptist Church justifies UK picket - Telegraph

Praise Jesus!
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2009, 07:35 PM   #44
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 04:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Vega View Post
The US did the same to Cat Stevens, or now Yusuf Islam, in 2004.
Whether my mistaken identity, mistaken information or past association, his name was on the post 9/11 No-Fly-List. He has been in the country several times since without controversy.

Someone in the bureaucracy of Homeland Security finally figured out this was the guy that sang Peacetrain.
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2009, 07:49 PM   #45
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 08:40 AM
He is also a man that agreed that according to koranic law Salman Rushdie deserved a death sentence for blasphemy, and stopped making music because he considered it un-Islamic.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com