[NYCFarmboy]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050828/D8C8JGIG0.html
By BETH RUCKER


SMYRNA, Tenn. (AP) - Members of a church say God is punishing American soldiers for defending a country that harbors gays, and they brought their anti-gay message to the funerals Saturday of two Tennessee soldiers killed in Iraq.


The church members were met with scorn from local residents. They chased the church members cars' down a highway, waving flags and screaming "God bless America."
"My husband is over there, so I'm here to show my support," 41-year-old Connie Ditmore said as she waved and American flag and as tears came to her eyes. "To do this at a funeral is disrespectful of a family, no matter what your beliefs are."


The Rev. Fred Phelps, founder of Westboro Baptist in Kansas, contends that American soldiers are being killed in Iraq as vengeance from God for protecting a country that harbors gays. The church, which is not affiliated with a larger denomination, is made up mostly of Phelps' children, grandchildren and in-laws.


The church members carried signs and shouted things such as "God hates fags" and "God hates you."
About 10 church members protested near Smyrna United Methodist Church and nearly 20 stood outside the National Guard Armory in Ashland City. Members have demonstrated at other soldier funerals across the nation.


The funerals were for Staff Sgt. Asbury Fred Hawn II, 35, in Smyrna and Spc. Gary Reese Jr., 22, in Ashland City. Both were members of the Tennessee National Guard.
Hundreds of Smyrna and Ashland City residents and families of other soldiers turned out at both sites to counter the message the Westboro Baptist members brought.


So many counterdemonstrators were gathered in Ashland City that police, sheriff's deputies and state troopers were brought in to control traffic and protect the protesters.
The church members held protesting permits, and counterprotesters in Smyrna turned their backs to Westboro Baptist members until time expired on the protest permits.
"If they were protesting the government, I might even join them," Danny Cotton, 56, said amid cries of "get out of our town" and "get out of our country."

"But for them to come during the worst time for this family - it's just wrong."

[spauldingg]

It's a such a sick sad shame that even the most hardcore republicans on this board (with the exception of maybe budster) would decry this as twisted, mean, insanity.

[Spliffdaddy]

We should introduce them to Cindy Sheehan.

[spauldingg]

What does Ms. Sheehan have to do with Freako Phelps' personal mission to rid the world of sodomites?

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by spauldingg

It's a such a sick sad shame that even the most hardcore republicans on this board (with the exception of maybe budster) would decry this as twisted, mean, insanity.

At least this story has a happy ending (in whatever way the term 'happy' applies). I think this is the one, in any case. I mean, what can I say? No government forced either side to act as it did, so there was no government oppression, but the Westboro Baptists got what they deserved. This is the proper way to deal with fiends like them, not ramming through laws which hurt everyone for the sake of eliminating a couple of beasts.

[Edit: snipping out a bunch of redundant stuff which I had missed in the OP]

[spauldingg]

Originally Posted by Millennium

This is the proper way to deal with fiends like them, not ramming through laws which hurt everyone for the sake of eliminating a couple of beasts.

unlike this

[Millennium]

Free speech zones leave a bad taste in my mouth, but I've come to wonder if they're not a necessary thing after all. I've been looking into them, and the point is not so much to keep protesters in as to keep police and others out. The amount of legal protection afforded to those in a free-speech zone actually surpasses that given to those outside it under other circumstances. There's also the sad reality that many modern demonstrators are not content to simply protest: they attempt to cross the line into actual disruption, which is well outside the realm of free speech. Consider the IMF meetings, where the demonstrators openly admit that they're out to shut the meeting down. Consider also the cases of demonstrators who lie down in the middle of the road; this was a popular tactic in the early days of the Iraq war. Free speech zones, when properly constructed, provide a clear line between protest and disruption, both for the demonstrators and the police.

This is not to say I'm a fan of the concept of free-speech zones. They don't sit well with me, from an aesthetic standpoint if nothing else. But I'm not certain if there isn't anything other than aesthetics to my opposition.

[spauldingg]

Originally Posted by Millennium

There's also the sad reality that many modern demonstrators are not content to simply protest: they attempt to cross the line into actual disruption,

Yeah, like this guy.

[placebo1969]

Originally Posted by spauldingg

Yeah, like this guy.

Yeah, that's that the same thing.

That guy was protesting for freedom, for life. The protesters I see are protesting Starbucks.

[spauldingg]

Originally Posted by placebo1969

Yeah, that's that the same thing.

That guy was protesting for freedom, for life. The protesters I see are protesting Starbucks.

Coffee, tea, freedom. What's the dif?

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally Posted by placebo1969

Yeah, that's that the same thing.

That guy was protesting for freedom, for life. The protesters I see are protesting Starbucks.

exactly!

[spauldingg]

This is the scary part about free speech zones, from the blog:

"So let me get this straight--and also let me present this to you, and you decide what is wrong with this picture. If you are "pro-Bush," you need no permit to stand along the edge of the road, and no security is necessary if you decide that you want to get as close to the President as you can. The police checked none of them, asked them for no permits, and allowed those people to line the street within only inches of where the President would be riding.

So if I were a terrorist or an assassin trying to "hit" our President, all I would have needed to do in order to get only inches away from him, would have been to say nothing, get no permit, and carry no sign."

[budster101]

I'm honored to be mentioned in this thread? What's it about? I didn't bother reading it past my name.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by placebo1969

Yeah, that's that the same thing.

That guy was protesting for freedom, for life. The protesters I see are protesting Starbucks.

I agree with your statement, but not your reasoning. Last I checked, the demonstrators at Tianenmen Square protested and nothing more; in particular, they did not attempt to disrupt the lives of the people around them.

[RIRedinPA]

Westboro Baptist are the same nuts who said the tsunami that devestated parts of Indonesia and Thailand and other areas was released by God to punish Sweden, which lost something like 500 citizens in the disaster because of that country's liberal policies towards gays.

Man, that is one ticked off God they worship - he's going to kill over 170,000 people, injury and displace countless more, throw the economies of some of the poorest nations into a tailspin just to take out 500 Swedes and teach that country a lesson on gays? And he did that to countries which have a much more conservative views of gays than Sweden.

These people aren't worth bile.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by spauldingg

"So let me get this straight--and also let me present this to you, and you decide what is wrong with this picture. If you are "pro-Bush," you need no permit to stand along the edge of the road, and no security is necessary if you decide that you want to get as close to the President as you can. The police checked none of them, asked them for no permits, and allowed those people to line the street within only inches of where the President would be riding.

Pro-Bush demonstrators were placed into the same sort of free-speech zones as anti-Bush ones. The only way you could get that close would be if you did not intend to take part in a demonstration that day, regardless of your beliefs.

So if I were a terrorist or an assassin trying to "hit" our President, all I would have needed to do in order to get only inches away from him, would have been to say nothing, get no permit, and carry no sign."

The author of this article seems to have a naive idea of what's involved in assassinations and thwarting assassinations. All that would do is get you close. Other measures are in place to deal with close-in assassination attempts. This is, for example, why you don't see sitting presidents riding in open cars anymore.