• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Westboro Meets Its Match: Thousands Sign Retaliatory Petitions

Ikari said:
It may not be "what was intended", but it is a consequence there of. Live with it. Destroying freedom because you don't think some dumbass pricks should talk will not drive us to a better place. Freedom has consequences, we must accept those.
Click to expand...

"Destroying freedom"????!!!!! Grow up! So you agree it was not the intention but you add it is a consequence there of which means you are saying it is OK to kill a family when your are drunk behind the wheel of a car because it was never your intention to do so. You may want to stop hacking about "freedom" until you grasp the concepts of respect and obligation and simple common decency.
 
rhinefire said:
"Destroying freedom"????!!!!! Grow up! So you agree it was not the intention but you add it is a consequence there of which means you are saying it is OK to kill a family when your are drunk behind the wheel of a car because it was never your intention to do so. You may want to stop hacking about "freedom" until you grasp the concepts of respect and obligation and simple common decency.
Click to expand...

What an absolutely idiotic argument.
 
RepublicanMcDuc said:
How can one justify removing this church's status, but not that of other churches?
Click to expand...

Because you remove one drivers right to drive doesn't mean all drivers lose their right to drive.

It is a case by case basis.

The question is, how did they get tax exempt status in the first place. They don't appear to be an actual church.
 
Thrilla said:
damn... I hate WBC as much as anyone... but don't sign me up for approving of this petition crap.

due process means something in our system... ****ing use it.
don't believe you have the power to strip groups of their rights or benefits just because you do not like them or their message.

the IRS has a hotline you can call if you feel a group is not holding up their tax exempt bargain...use it.... don't go grabbin' pitchfork and torches.... use the ****ing system we have.
Click to expand...

Isn't the petition the begninning of due process?
 
Fishstyx said:
So now a petition is started? So now Anonymous does their crap to them? They're all douchebags, this should have been happening a long time ago when they were doing this to grieving families burying servicemen!!
Click to expand...

Or before that, when they were doing this to grieving families of gay people...
 
theplaydrive said:
can somebody explain to me how this is a suppression of free speech? I agree that singling out wbc as a hate group and not doing the same for similarly hateful churches and organizations is abuse of power, but hate groups can still have demonstrations and the like, so...
Click to expand...
Why Is This A Suppression Of Free Speech?
 
1. I have no love for Westboro...but then again, I have no love for the KKK.

2. Citizens have the right to petition their government, so I have no heartburn with any of the people who have signed the ones mentioned in the article.

3. The government should not rescind the tax exempt status for Westboro unless they are willing to rescind that status for every other group that now has it because, as far as I know, Westboro has not broken any laws that affect its status.

4. Mob rule does not...nor should it...have a place in our society.
 
As odious as their message is and as suspect of their "church" status may be, it seems to me that trying to shut them up is suppression of freedom of speech. Removing their tax free status as a religious institution is abrogating the constitutional right of freedom of worship.

BUT, they should be allowed to demonstrate, as long as its far enough away to respect the rights of the mourners. their in your face hateful messages and protests can and should be viewed as an assault on innocent mourners rights and religious freedoms and as such their protests should be removed/confined to a space far enough away from the cemetary that it has no impact on the ritual. And if they break the rules they should get their arses thrown in jail.

I watched one of those clowns in an interview and I must say she was an arrogant, self righteous, rude, pinhead, totally oblivious to reality.
 
Mason66 said:
Because you remove one drivers right to drive doesn't mean all drivers lose their right to drive.
Click to expand...

Poor comment that shows you didn't get the point I was making. There is no line that can be drawn between the WBC and many other churches that doesn't involve mere disgust. Given the context, removing their tax status is obvious viewpoint discrimination. Contrary to the misunderstanding by some here, the government cannot treat one church differently in this area simply because it considers its views "hateful". People are blurring different concepts together.

As for it not even being a church, it easily meets the very minimal criteria. There may be a good argument that the rules should be changed, but it is not right to interpret them differently in the case of one specific group. That is what people seem to be hoping happens here with the IRS. I hope public pressure loses and the petitions don't succeed.
 
Last edited:
RepublicanMcDuc said:
Poor comment that shows you didn't get the point I was making. There is no line that can be drawn between the WBC and many other churches that doesn't involve mere disgust. Given the context, removing their tax status is obvious viewpoint discrimination. Contrary to the misunderstanding by some here, the government cannot treat one church differently in this area simply because it considers its views "hateful". People are blurring different concepts together.

As for it not even being a church, it easily meets the very minimal criteria. There may be a good argument that the rules should be changed, but it is not right to interpret them differently in the case of one specific group. That is what people seem to be hoping happens here with the IRS. I hope public pressure loses and the petitions don't succeed.
Click to expand...

I got your point but the tax exempt status can be removed if the church does not adhear to the rules and regulations to have such status.

Nobody knows if they comply or not.

The petition is to ask the IRS to find out.

Why can that be a bad thing?
 
Ikari said:
How so? Is a protest considered "conducting itself", cause lots of churches protest in public. Sometimes they can put displays up in public. Often times some variant of them will preach in public. Would this not essentially mean that no church should have tax-exempt status?
Click to expand...

Let me work this out a bit more. A church has grounds...a place of worship. Whatever happens inside those doors...fine. They can say what they want, believe want, vote together...don't care.

Once the congregation (by order of the church...hard to prove) moves outside of those grounds, and then uses public property to protest on, that is where I believe the line is.

As far as displays in public, they should be allowed on church grounds, private property, or due to a permit with the town.

That is how I see the beginning of this idea.
 
Blue_State said:
Let me work this out a bit more. A church has grounds...a place of worship. Whatever happens inside those doors...fine. They can say what they want, believe want, vote together...don't care.

Once the congregation (by order of the church...hard to prove) moves outside of those grounds, and then uses public property to protest on, that is where I believe the line is.

As far as displays in public, they should be allowed on church grounds, private property, or due to a permit with the town.

That is how I see the beginning of this idea.
Click to expand...

So....religion is ok so long as it stays indoors?
 
Mason66 said:
I got your point but the tax exempt status can be removed if the church does not adhear to the rules and regulations to have such status.

Nobody knows if they comply or not.

The petition is to ask the IRS to find out.

Why can that be a bad thing?
Click to expand...

It seems there are multiple petitions. One of the ones making the headlines quite clearly calls for their status to be revoked: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...y-westboro-baptist-church-hate-group/tNVz4V7Q. Others say investigate, but the reasons given are flimsy.

The broader point though is that there is no reason for any of these petitions except disagreement with their views.
 
Blue_State said:
Stays on church or private property.

This is for the tax-exempt purpose.
Click to expand...

Don't like it. STFU, stay in doors; government will reward you. Exercise your right to expression, assembly, association, and/or protest; government will punish you.
 
Ikari said:
Don't like it. STFU, stay in doors; government will reward you. Exercise your right to expression, assembly, association, and/or protest; government will punish you.
Click to expand...

With the whole seperation of church and state, why should a church be allowed to use public resources if it isn't paying taxes? Currently, at some level they already are.

No one said stay indoors, just stay off public property.
 
Blue_State said:
With the whole seperation of church and state, why should a church be allowed to use public resources if it isn't paying taxes? Currently, at some level they already are.

No one said stay indoors, just stay off public property.
Click to expand...

....

Public is public, that's all there is to it. You're trying to gain a government lever over religion and expression here. Either Churches are tax exempt, or they are not. There's no in between. This cannot be used as a dynamic through which government force is brought down upon those exercising rights.
 
Ikari said:
....

Public is public, that's all there is to it. You're trying to gain a government lever over religion and expression here. Either Churches are tax exempt, or they are not. There's no in between. This cannot be used as a dynamic through which government force is brought down upon those exercising rights.
Click to expand...

But church and state are separate. If your church violates that line, then it should lose its tax exemption.
 
Ikari said:
....

Public is public, that's all there is to it. You're trying to gain a government lever over religion and expression here. Either Churches are tax exempt, or they are not. There's no in between. This cannot be used as a dynamic through which government force is brought down upon those exercising rights.
Click to expand...

None of our rights are without exception, condition. Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose for one thing, for another you don't have the right to fighting words or to incite. Oh you can do it anyway, but the law will not always shield you from the natural consequences of your speech in those cases.

And always hated that "right of expression". Where does it say that in the Constitution? It's the right of Free Speech.
 
Blue_State said:
But church and state are separate. If your church violates that line, then it should lose its tax exemption.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are separate. Expression religion in a public forum is not entanglement of church and state, however. You seem to think it is. If a Church gains power to legislate and does so, you have a point; if it's people expression their views and beliefs, you don't.
 
clownboy said:
None of our rights are without exception, condition. Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose for one thing, for another you don't have the right to fighting words or to incite. Oh you can do it anyway, but the law will not always shield you from the natural consequences of your speech in those cases.

And always hated that "right of expression". Where does it say that in the Constitution? It's the right of Free Speech.
Click to expand...

Yes yes, each time we move further down the road of *****. But freedom of religion includes the ability to express said religion (which would fall under speech, so please refrain from further stupid argument). Like it or not, they can express their views, they can speak to them, they can assemble, they can associate, they can protest. At no point do they throw the fist, they specifically ensure that their actions avoid inciting. If you get all excited and antsy in the pantsy because idiots are running their mouths, then that's on you. You have no right to infringe upon their free exercise.
 
Ikari said:
Yes, they are separate. Expression religion in a public forum is not entanglement of church and state, however. You seem to think it is. If a Church gains power to legislate and does so, you have a point; if it's people expression their views and beliefs, you don't.
Click to expand...

Exactly. My first deranged comment suggested something about it being a church event, not individual. There is a possibility that did not translate.
 
Blue_State said:
Exactly. My first deranged comment suggested something about it being a church event, not individual. There is a possibility that did not translate.
Click to expand...

So yes, the individuals of the church assembled, associated, and protested on public land. As is their right, I don't see how that's entanglement of Church and State just because it may happen on public land.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom