Does this make you happy, too?

[JPC sr]

Mr. Ferrari

Why do I get so personal? Because in this case I am a soldiers wife. If my husband were to die while in Iraq, or anywhere for that matter, and someone stood outside the doors of my church saying "Thank God for dead soldiers." and yelling out that this is God's punishment for homosexuals, I would be highly offended. Its bad enough to protest beliefs that have nothing to do with the poor soldiers death, but to say thank God for it? Flat out wrong. Do you think the family needed that added stress to their time of grieving?

This poster has big reasons to take it personal and she is still trying to turn it into a personal arguement and so she does not give an objective or an un-biased position and that is what is needed in such a case of free speech and free religious expression at a funeral.

Does she (or anyone) give such regard to Iraqi soldiers killed by Americans and now lay in mass graves provided by the USA? I say not.

What about Saddam Hussein? as his body was disposed of so no funeral could be given by his family. I see no one in the USA giving a personal objection for that.

How about USA criminals? If that guy in Florida that violated the young girl and buried her alive in a plastic bag? so if his family has a big nice funeral then are no one allowed to protest it? out of respect - of course.

Or other criminals or unpopular politicians or anybody except thy personal relative? or personal friend? or only patriotic persons? etc.

Is the dispute only that American soldiers must be given special respect? that no one protest their funerals?

I have no objection if anyone plans to protest my funeral, or any funeral.

 

[~mellabella~]

This poster has big reasons to take it personal and she is still trying to turn it into a personal arguement and so she does not give an objective or an un-biased position and that is what is needed in such a case of free speech and free religious expression at a funeral.

Does she (or anyone) give such regard to Iraqi soldiers killed by Americans and now lay in mass graves provided by the USA? I say not.

What about Saddam Hussein? as his body was disposed of so no funeral could be given by his family. I see no one in the USA giving a personal objection for that.

How about USA criminals? If that guy in Florida that violated the young girl and buried her alive in a plastic bag? so if his family has a big nice funeral then are no one allowed to protest it? out of respect - of course.

Or other criminals or unpopular politicians or anybody except thy personal relative? or personal friend? or only patriotic persons? etc.

Is the dispute only that American soldiers must be given special respect? that no one protest their funerals?

I have no objection if anyone plans to protest my funeral, or any funeral.

Don't pretend to know what regard I do or do not give to any of the soldiers, or innocent children, that are being killed over there. Whether they be Iraqi or American. As far as me being unbiased, well, I am not. If they want to protest I am not saying they don't have the right too. But there is a time and place for these things.

Saddam Hussian's body was disposed of as his culture saw fit. Do I think that it was right? No. But if I object it I am trampling on other peoples religions and culture.

People should never protest at a funeral, no matter how despicable that person was. It is the families right to grieve in peace.

The dispute lies when a church oversteps its boundaries and causes more grief than necessary. You need to read the message that people are saying and stop looking for poor excuses to fight with people.

I don't think you'd find anyone protesting at your funeral. Whether it be out of respect or disdain.

 

[JPC sr]

Mr. Ferrari

Personal? Are you telling me these "protesters" aren't getting personal?

Protest and protesting is meant to be personal or else it is a waste of time.

Like I said in an earlier post - the group was trying to make their point and the defensive response fed into it,

so I say the religious group was successful, and the Court will probably overturn the decision, but if not the group has other options.

Trying to declare that protesting is illegal because it offends the protestee and especially a religious protest - then it appears that the Federal Court has outlawed the first amendment for the common citizens.

 

[Toxick]

Trying to declare that protesting is illegal because

Stop.


Right there.


NOBODY is declaring that protesting is, or should be, illegal.

This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about with you.

 

[~mellabella~]

so I say the religious group was successful, and the Court will probably overturn the decision, but if not the group has other options.

Ok, I've got to ask. What makes you think that the decision will be overturned?

 

[JPC sr]

Mr. Ferrari

Stop.

Right there.

NOBODY is declaring that protesting is, or should be, illegal.

This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about with you.

What is being said then?

That only protesting a funeral is illegal?

That protesting is legal so long as it does not offend the protestees?

Protesting is legal so long as no one can see or hear the protest?

That is what a Court decision means that it applies to all protest.

 

[PsyOps]

Protest and protesting is meant to be personal or else it is a waste of time.

Like I said in an earlier post - the group was trying to make their point and the defensive response fed into it,

so I say the religious group was successful, and the Court will probably overturn the decision, but if not the group has other options.

Trying to declare that protesting is illegal because it offends the protestee and especially a religious protest - then it appears that the Federal Court has outlawed the first amendment for the common citizens.

I just want to know when and where you will be holding your campaign speeches. I want to make sure my crowd disallows your right to speak freely, simply because I disagree with you.

 

[~mellabella~]

What is being said then?

That only protesting a funeral is illegal?

That protesting is legal so long as it does not offend the protestees?

Protesting is legal so long as no one can see or hear the protest?

That is what a Court decision means that it applies to all protest.

No one said any of that was illegal. But we did say it is morally reprehensible.

 

[PsyOps]

No one said any of that was illegal. But we did say it is morally reprehensible.

One must have morals in order to understand this.

 

[~mellabella~]

One must have morals in order to understand this.

Agreed.

 

[JPC sr]

Mr. Ferrari

Ok, I've got to ask. What makes you think that the decision will be overturned?

Because of the first amendment to the US Constitution link HERE.

Amendment I
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.

The group was excercising their religion, and making free speech, and even peaceably assembling since it was a non violent protest.

If the Courts and the law does not uphold the Constitution then we all do not have those rights.

 

[godsbutterfly]

One must have morals in order to understand this.

I cannot believe this many days later JPC is still debating against this issue. Things used to be so much simpler. My Gramma would have said "You have the right to go stand in the road where the traffic is too but that doesn't mean it's what you should do!". Sometimes it just takes listening to common sense and knowing what is right within your heart.

 

[Toxick]

What is being said then?

What is being said is that these people do not have the right to trample on the rights of others.

I spelled it out very clearly in my FIRST POST on the subject. "Let them protest where they're not infringing on anyone else's rights" is what I said.

Their right to assembly, does NOT trump the mourners right to expression and privacy.



And thinking on it further: given the intent of these protesters - that of provoking mourners, and attempting to incite riots, which YOU have already admitted is true - their protest does not fall within the confines of peaceable assembly, but rather as a catalyst for violence, and therefore should not be protected.

That is what a Court decision means that it applies to all protest.

Only when it infringes on other's rights.

Whether you acknowledge those rights or not.

 

[This_person]

Protest and protesting is meant to be personal or else it is a waste of time.

Like I said in an earlier post - the group was trying to make their point and the defensive response fed into it,

so I say the religious group was successful, and the Court will probably overturn the decision, but if not the group has other options.

Trying to declare that protesting is illegal because it offends the protestee and especially a religious protest - then it appears that the Federal Court has outlawed the first amendment for the common citizens.

"A number of states have passed laws regarding funeral protests, and Congress has passed a law prohibiting such protests at federal cemeteries"

No one is saying they can't protest. No one is outlawing the First Amendment for the common (sic) citizens. The laws are about taking away the First Amendment rights of those who wish to practice their religious and personal (read: private) ceremonies. See, when the rights of one trample the rights of the others, that's where the rights of the one need to stop.

So, protest away in the parks, streets, fields, and letters to the editor or governor all they want. Practice their religion of hatred and intolerance all they want. But, don't trample the rights of others to be what they can be (Army slogan reference intended).

The lawsuit (that will probably NOT be overturned) was a civil suit - one person suing another person. It did not establish law, it did not violate anyone's right to religion nor from free speech.

Toxick was very right, when you make outlandishly wrong claims of what others are doing and saying, and then defend those outlandish claims with idiotic JPC-logic, it's very hard to treat you with respect.

 

[JPC sr]

Mr. Ferrari

No one said any of that was illegal. But we did say it is morally reprehensible.

The Court has effectively said it was illegal - see post #1 of this thread, link HERE.

The Court ordered the protesters to pay 11 Million dollars in damages.

 

[Toxick]

No one said any of that was illegal. But we did say it is morally reprehensible.

I say it's illegal. And the court says it's illegal (see first post of this thread).



Their right to swing their fist ends where my nose begins.

 

[Xaquin44]

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

mmmm baby lets look at this.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Well protesting isn't a religion and even if you argued that protesting is part of a religion it is refuted by this "right of the people peaceably to assemble".

next.

or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press

no one is saying that WBC can't say what they're saying. Only where.

or the right of the people peaceably to assemble

ah yes. the right to peaceably assemble .... the right the funeral attendes are denied.

and to petition the government for a redress of grievances

N/A in the context of this arguement.

edit: the right to peaceably assemple to protest is also waved by the WBC as holding offensive signs and shouting insults is in no way peaceable.

 

[~mellabella~]

mmmm baby lets look at this.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Well protesting isn't a religion and even if you argued that protesting is part of a religion it is refuted by this "right of the people peaceably to assemble".

next.

or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press

no one is saying that WBC can't say what they're saying. Only where.

or the right of the people peaceably to assemble

ah yes. the right to peaceably assemble .... the right the funeral attendes are denied.

and to petition the government for a redress of grievances

N/A in the context of this arguement.

And THAT says it all.

 

[This_person]

And THAT says it all.

Which means Jimmy should be back any minute now with a nonsense rebuttal.

 

[godsbutterfly]

Which means Jimmy should be back any minute now with a nonsense rebuttal.

Silence is golden. Enjoy quickly! Seriously - what more is there to say on this?