Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed -  Church group to protest funeral
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic Closed Church group to protest funeral

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 7>
Author
Message
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 07 2008 at 21:28
Originally posted by WinterLight WinterLight wrote:

Although I think that Phelps' beliefs are idiotic, I also maintain that he should have the right to articulate them.  However, it seems like petulant kinderspiel to suggest that we possess the right to not have our feelings hurt or our sensibilities offended.  A fortiori it is hypocrisy to eulogize free speech and then to deny its practice (at least if the practice of such privilege is to have any meaning).
 
Just answer me something:
 
What can a judge do, when the Constitutional right of of one group enters in conflict with the Constitutional right of another group?
 
  1. Which one must you protect?
  2. The ones of thjose who are acting peacefully
  3. Or those who are abusing their right?

There must be a limit to anything.

Here in Perú for example, when the terrorists killed people, there were some newspapers celebrating the killings and promoting terrorist acts, the state had to balance and created a new crime "Apología del Terrorismo" Apology of terrorism, anybody who promoted a terrorist act by any mean would be subject of penal law.
 
This newspapers stopped, later was  proved that some of this panflets sent encoded messages to the terrorists hidden in the news.
 
Dramatic situations need drastic measures.
 
Iván


Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - August 07 2008 at 21:31
            
Back to Top
WinterLight View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: June 09 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 424
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 07 2008 at 21:38
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

What can a judge do, when the Constitutional right of of one group enters in conflict with the Constitutional right of another group?

Not sure if there is a de facto conflict of Constitutional rights.

  1. Which one must you protect?
  2. The ones of thjose who are acting peacefully
  3. Or those who are abusing their right?
That one group is "abusing their right" hasn't been established; it's merely been assumed.
 
Dramatic situations need drastic measures.
 
I disagree.  Taking "drastic measures" nullifies the purpose of having principles at all, i.e. we adopt certain standards when no crisis is at hand in order to facilitate rational decision making.
Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 07 2008 at 21:39
Originally posted by Pnoom! Pnoom! wrote:

 
Quote The Indiana General Assemby  is not banning the protests of this lunatic, it's only giving a restriction order that prohibits them to protest in a range of 500 feetfrom the cemetery.
 
They can protest as much as they want a block and a half from the cemetery, but not disturb a RELIGIOUS CEREMONY IN HONOR OF A DEAD PERSON.


But this is different from banning the pickets outright, which is all I opposed.
 


AFAIK, most of the funeral laws I've heard of simply place a type of "restraining order" on the protesters, that they must stay x ft. away for some prescribed amount of time before, during, and after the service.  Most states are probably aware that outright bans simply couldn't pass constitutional muster.

There are those who are more ardent defenders of free speech than I could be who oppose even these laws - they view such restrictions as unconstitutional, much like the "free speech zones" set up during national party conventions (viz., the Republican convention in 2004).  Of course in today's society completely unrestricted assembly doesn't seem to be possible anyway; there's always a permit to be obtained and a lot of protests seem to be cordoned off or isolated in some way.  It's why I find it bizarrely ironic when I hear Americans decry similar free speech zones in Beijing for the Olympics.
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 07 2008 at 21:43
Originally posted by WinterLight WinterLight wrote:

Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

What can a judge do, when the Constitutional right of of one group enters in conflict with the Constitutional right of another group?

Not sure if there is a de facto conflict of Constitutional rights.

Yes there is, the protestors are not allowing the family of the dead person to have a peacefull RELIGIOUS ceremony....That's a conflict.


  1. Which one must you protect?
  2. The ones of thjose who are acting peacefully
  3. Or those who are abusing their right?

That one group is "abusing their right" hasn't been established; it's merely been assumed.

Phelps followers are disturbing a peaceful religious ceremony, while the faily of the dead person have not oirrupted in a ceremony of Phelps "Church" 

Dramatic situations need drastic measures.
 

I disagree.  Taking "drastic measures" nullifies the purpose of having principles at all, i.e. we adopt certain standards when no crisis is at hand in order to facilitate rational decision making.

Yes there's a situation of crisis, two groups in conflict will generate a riot, and I believed HATE CRIMES are tipified.

Iván
            
Back to Top
Pnoom! View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 07 2008 at 21:54
Originally posted by NaturalScience NaturalScience wrote:

Originally posted by Pnoom! Pnoom! wrote:

 
Quote The Indiana General Assemby  is not banning the protests of this lunatic, it's only giving a restriction order that prohibits them to protest in a range of 500 feetfrom the cemetery.
 
They can protest as much as they want a block and a half from the cemetery, but not disturb a RELIGIOUS CEREMONY IN HONOR OF A DEAD PERSON.


But this is different from banning the pickets outright, which is all I opposed.
 


AFAIK, most of the funeral laws I've heard of simply place a type of "restraining order" on the protesters, that they must stay x ft. away for some prescribed amount of time before, during, and after the service.  Most states are probably aware that outright bans simply couldn't pass constitutional muster.

There are those who are more ardent defenders of free speech than I could be who oppose even these laws - they view such restrictions as unconstitutional, much like the "free speech zones" set up during national party conventions (viz., the Republican convention in 2004).  Of course in today's society completely unrestricted assembly doesn't seem to be possible anyway; there's always a permit to be obtained and a lot of protests seem to be cordoned off or isolated in some way.  It's why I find it bizarrely ironic when I hear Americans decry similar free speech zones in Beijing for the Olympics.


The slight difference though is that provoking people enduring grief is likely to create extreme states of mind that lead to irrational actional, and thus is directly disturbing the peace.  Free speech cages at the olympics or political rallies can't really claim this.
Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 07 2008 at 22:14
Originally posted by Pnoom! Pnoom! wrote:

Originally posted by NaturalScience NaturalScience wrote:

Originally posted by Pnoom! Pnoom! wrote:

 
Quote The Indiana General Assemby  is not banning the protests of this lunatic, it's only giving a restriction order that prohibits them to protest in a range of 500 feetfrom the cemetery.
 
They can protest as much as they want a block and a half from the cemetery, but not disturb a RELIGIOUS CEREMONY IN HONOR OF A DEAD PERSON.


But this is different from banning the pickets outright, which is all I opposed.
 


AFAIK, most of the funeral laws I've heard of simply place a type of "restraining order" on the protesters, that they must stay x ft. away for some prescribed amount of time before, during, and after the service.  Most states are probably aware that outright bans simply couldn't pass constitutional muster.

There are those who are more ardent defenders of free speech than I could be who oppose even these laws - they view such restrictions as unconstitutional, much like the "free speech zones" set up during national party conventions (viz., the Republican convention in 2004).  Of course in today's society completely unrestricted assembly doesn't seem to be possible anyway; there's always a permit to be obtained and a lot of protests seem to be cordoned off or isolated in some way.  It's why I find it bizarrely ironic when I hear Americans decry similar free speech zones in Beijing for the Olympics.


The slight difference though is that provoking people enduring grief is likely to create extreme states of mind that lead to irrational actional, and thus is directly disturbing the peace.  Free speech cages at the olympics or political rallies can't really claim this.


Ever try to drive in Washington during the World Bank meetings?  Those protests pretty much shut down Foggy Bottom - making life a hell for people just trying to go about their business.
Back to Top
Pnoom! View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 07 2008 at 22:17
I stand corrected.
Back to Top
WinterLight View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: June 09 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 424
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 07 2008 at 22:23
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Not sure if there is a de facto conflict of Constitutional rights.

Yes there is, the protestors are not allowing the family of the dead person to have a peacefull RELIGIOUS ceremony....That's a conflict.

I know nearly nothing about Canadian law; however, it's difficult to imagine that any nation could make such an intangible guarantee as the right to a "peaceful ceremony."

***

That one group is "abusing their right" hasn't been established; it's merely been assumed.

Phelps followers are disturbing a peaceful religious ceremony, while the faily of the dead person have not oirrupted in a ceremony of Phelps "Church"

Civil rights aren't necessarily premised on fairness.  Should the government mandate that all of Winnipeg wear a black armband so as to honor the deceased, and of course, not offend its loved ones?  Furthermore, there's no need to surround "church" with quotation marks, as that's what it really is (his organization is no less inane than other religious ones, but this is besides the point).

***

Dramatic situations need drastic measures.

I disagree.  Taking "drastic measures" nullifies the purpose of having principles at all, i.e. we adopt certain standards when no crisis is at hand in order to facilitate rational decision making.

Yes there's a situation of crisis, two groups in conflict will generate a riot, and I believed HATE CRIMES are tipified.

If the two groups have the moral integrity of spoiled children, then maybe their collective paucity of discipline could evolve a "riot".  But, still, the notion of hate crimes is a modern absurdity:  for it is nothing more than subjecting thought to the penal code.
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 07 2008 at 22:39
Originally posted by WinterLight WinterLight wrote:

Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

I know nearly nothing about Canadian law; however, it's difficult to imagine that any nation could make such an intangible guarantee as the right to a "peaceful ceremony."
***

That one group is "abusing their right" hasn't been established; it's merely been assumed.

Every country guarantees free excercise of RELIGION

Furthermore, there's no need to surround "church" with quotation marks, as that's what it really is (his organization is no less inane than other religious ones, but this is besides the point).

I believe yes, they have been classified as hate group, I don't believe an institution that promotes hate is a Church..

Iván
            
Back to Top
WinterLight View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: June 09 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 424
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 07 2008 at 23:12
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:


Every country guarantees free excercise of RELIGION

Every country?  It's doubtful that North Korea allows such religious freedom.  But we don't even to leave this part of the globe to encounter restrictions on the "free exercise of religion."  For Utah to join the Union, it had to forbid polygamy, which of course is a restriction on the practice of Mormonism.

...
I don't believe an institution that promotes hate is a Church.

Fine.  Then no institution qualifies as a church: religion inheres separatism, xenophobia, and hate (despite its capacity to promote sometimes the dual characteristics).
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 07 2008 at 23:28

Originally posted by WinterLight WinterLight wrote:



Every country?  It's doubtful that North Korea allows such religious freedom.  But we don't even to leave this part of the globe to encounter restrictions on the "free exercise of religion."  For Utah to join the Union, it had to forbid polygamy, which of course is a restriction on the practice of Mormonism.

You are going to the other extreme, that's another case.

BTW: Poligammy attempts against the USA laws, not even a religion has the right to infringe the laws

Fine.  Then no institution qualifies as a church: religion inheres separatism, xenophobia, and hate (despite its capacity to promote sometimes the dual characteristics).

Not every Church is separatist and sexist.

Iván


Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - August 07 2008 at 23:30
            
Back to Top
WinterLight View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: June 09 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 424
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 07 2008 at 23:39
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Every country?  It's doubtful that North Korea allows such religious freedom.  But we don't even to leave this part of the globe to encounter restrictions on the "free exercise of religion."  For Utah to join the Union, it had to forbid polygamy, which of course is a restriction on the practice of Mormonism.

You are going to the other extreme, that's another case.

How is it extreme?  Many thousands practice polygamy by religious mandate.  You asserted that "every" nation guarantees the exercise of religious beliefs.  But that just isn't so.

BTW: Poligammy attempts against the USA laws, not even a religion has the right to infringe the laws

But those laws restrict religious practice, no?

Not every Church is separatist and sexist.

I can't think of any counterexamples, can you?
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 08 2008 at 00:28

Originally posted by WinterLight WinterLight wrote:

 

How is it extreme?  Many thousands practice polygamy by religious mandate.  You asserted that "every" nation guarantees the exercise of religious beliefs.  But that just isn't so.

 

Ok, we are talking about countries with a democratic traditions, there will always be totalitarian Governments, but freedom of religion isn't the worst problem in those countries, they don't have freedom of speech, reunion, free elections, right to a fair trial, etc. Wink

 

Most surely they wouldn’t have problems with Phelps, they would simply shoot a person who attempts against the burial of one of the Revolutionary heroes.



But those laws restrict religious practice, no?

 

No, polygamy is hardly a religious practice; it's like saying Christian and Jewish religions allow slavery because it's mentioned in the Bible.

 

Many religions including Judaism allowed polygamy, but this religions had to adapt their USES to the laws of the countries.

 

BTW: There’s a difference in admitting polygamy and being a religious practice.

 

I can't think of any counterexamples, can you?

 

Of course every religion believes they are the chosen ones, but not every religion attack people, goes to a funeral or claims everybody except them are doom.

 

I know you won't believe it, but since the Vatican II Council, the Catholic Church admits salvation outside the Church, also Buddhism is against any form of religious discrimination, some Christian Churches are pretty advanced in rights issues.

 

And as them there are others.

 

Iván

 

            
Back to Top
WinterLight View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: June 09 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 424
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 08 2008 at 00:56
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

No, polygamy is hardly a religious practice; it's like saying Christian and Jewish religions allow slavery because it's mentioned in the Bible.


The Church generally supports the status quo, be it slavery or marital norms.

 

Many religions including Judaism allowed polygamy, but this religions had to adapt their USES to the laws of the countries.


No argument here.  My point is that such adaptation is a matter of restriction, no matter which way you interpret it.

 

BTW: There’s a difference in admitting polygamy and being a religious practice.


Of course.  But in the case of Mormonism it is a religious practice.


Of course every religion believes they are the chosen ones, but not every religion attack people, goes to a funeral or claims everybody except them are doom.


I can't think of one religion the practitioners of which have not persecuted some group during some era.  I'm not implying that all members of a particular religion behave this way all the time, but merely that such behavior occurs, and occurs rather ecumenically.

 

I know you won't believe it, but since the Vatican II Council, the Catholic Church admits salvation outside the Church, 


But liberation theology, as well as other themes of the Vatican II, is considered controversial amongst Catholics (outside of Central and South America).

Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 08 2008 at 01:05

Originally posted by WinterLight WinterLight wrote:

No argument here.  My point is that such adaptation is a matter of restriction, no matter which way you interpret it

So...If a religion allows human sacrifices and the law bans this acts.....Is this a restriction?

 

I can't think of one religion the practitioners of which have not persecuted some group during some era.  I'm not implying that all members of a particular religion behave this way all the time, but merely that such behavior occurs, and occurs rather ecumenically.

 

Times change, and religions also, could you imagine 30 years ago about sins against environment?


But liberation theology, as well as other themes of the Vatican II, is considered controversial amongst Catholics (outside of Central and South America).

Thanks for helping me make my point...Theology of Liberation may be controversial, as a fact I don't agree with it, because it's materialist and diminishes the importance of the divinity of Christ (Gustavo Gutierrez, founder of the Libetration Theology was my teacher in the University and we had some  disagreements in class), but the Vatican has not excomunicated any priest or Bishop for being part of the theology............Times have changed, and the religions are more open to changes, at least some of them.

Being open minded doesn't mean you have to agree with everything, an issue can be controversial, but as long as people agree to disagree, it's OK.
 
Iván 


Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - August 08 2008 at 01:08
            
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 08 2008 at 08:14
I support their right to be total jerks, however I think we should also have the right to throw bricks at them Angry, perhaps from a specified distance.
What they do goes so much against the teachings of Jesus that the hypocrisy is breathtaking.
If there is a God and if there is a hell, then surely there's a special place reserved for them where they will spend eternity being cornholed by overly endowed demons. Evil%20Smile

Some further thoughts.  I drive by a women's clinic on the way in to work.  This clinic performs abortions in addition to basic gynecological services.  As contemptible as I find to harass women who are just going in for service or are needing an abortion, at least what they are doing is protest.  What Fred and crew are doing is not protest, it's harassment and therefore not protected free speech.


Edited by Slartibartfast - August 08 2008 at 09:26
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 08 2008 at 09:39
Originally posted by WinterLight WinterLight wrote:



Fine.  Then no institution qualifies as a church: religion inheres separatism, xenophobia, and hate (despite its capacity to promote sometimes the dual characteristics).


So, as my wife and I were raised Catholic, we must be xenophobic sociopaths, right?
Back to Top
Norbert View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 20 2005
Location: Hungary
Status: Offline
Points: 2506
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 08 2008 at 10:46
GoldenSpiral and Micky has already summed up what I think about the subject  of this thread and of the thread itself.
 
 


Edited by Norbert - August 08 2008 at 10:46
Back to Top
WinterLight View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: June 09 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 424
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 08 2008 at 10:56
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

No argument here.  My point is that such adaptation is a matter of restriction, no matter which way you interpret it

So...If a religion allows human sacrifices and the law bans this acts.....Is this a restriction?

Yes, it is a restriction, but a justifiable one.  This isn't a difficult concept.

 
Back to Top
WinterLight View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: June 09 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 424
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 08 2008 at 11:03
Originally posted by NaturalScience NaturalScience wrote:


Fine.  Then no institution qualifies as a church: religion inheres separatism, xenophobia, and hate (despite its capacity to promote sometimes the dual characteristics).

So, as my wife and I were raised Catholic, we must be xenophobic sociopaths, right?

Don't be obtuse.  I used the term "religion" not "religious people" to underscore those specified tendencies in religious doctrine.  It is a trivial observation to point out that the laity (and often the clergy) don't always adhere completely to orthodoxy.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 7>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.215 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.