Fred Phelps

I do not understand why they are not all dead by now. I mean if I was burying a family member and someone who did not even know who the deceased person was came up and said I am glad they are dead I would get all 20th century on their behinds and not even God would be able to stop me.

But today, if I was still a christian, I would ask them to read the book of Job. The reason being is when Job was going through his trial everyone around him assumed he had done something wrong to enrage God but that was not the case at all.
And I would also state that Jesus said that all have sinned, and all fall short of the glory of God (and that includes Fred and his inbred ilk) and we all deserve what we get.
 
bookitty said:
Fred Phelps is just an attention whore. Perhaps, many years ago, he once believed in what he was doing but these days it's all about the cameras.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that it is not about religion, it is not about attention, and it is not about homosexuality. Phelps and his family are simply a litigation company. Two of his family members are lawyers and their whole "mission" is attract an actionable reaction. Get one cop to spit at them or push them slightly or take down one of their signs and then they sue the municipality and get paid.

I don't have the time to drag all this up, but apparently they have been making a decent living off of provoking others into infringing their free speech rights so that they can then sue.

So please don't confuse their signs with their beliefs. Imagine they just carry around signs with "$$$$" printed on them because that is all they see.
 
Hokulele said:
The best suggestion I have ever seen for how to counter Phelps' insanity is this one:
Click to expand...

That's right. Engaging with the Phelps lunatics on their terms is exactly - and I mean exactly - what they want. Any form of violence against them would help them get what they want.

It might be difficult to avoid shouting insults at them, grabbing banners, throwing paint or engaging in shoving matches, but every time that happens, they chalk that up as a win. Even a thread like this is chalked up as a win.

Sadly, publicity goes to the worst cases. Want your troubled life to get some attention? Sorry, too boring. Try shooting up a school and then kill yourself. We'll play your video on the evening news, and you'll get a million hits on YouTube, provided you get into double figures.
 
westprog said:
That's right. Engaging with the Phelps lunatics on their terms is exactly - and I mean exactly - what they want. Any form of violence against them would help them get what they want.

It might be difficult to avoid shouting insults at them, grabbing banners, throwing paint or engaging in shoving matches, but every time that happens, they chalk that up as a win. Even a thread like this is chalked up as a win.

Sadly, publicity goes to the worst cases. Want your troubled life to get some attention? Sorry, too boring. Try shooting up a school and then kill yourself. We'll play your video on the evening news, and you'll get a million hits on YouTube, provided you get into double figures.
Click to expand...

See though, we wouldn't be on their grounds with violence. They are hiding behind the law, like that kid in school who takes your twinkie then runs behind the teacher. If you let that kid keep taking your twinkies , your not going to have any, and he has your number by using the authority figures as a place to hide.

So do what many people have done when the law is protecting a group that is simply out to cause harm. Break it. From a practical standpoint you have most of the population for you, and will get positive press, and some quick cash from the talk show circuit to mitigate any jail time. And are they going to keep this up when their insurance goes through the roof? Think of how high their premiums would be if it was a known fact that at least one member would get beat per protest? And think of the cities that wouldn't want the hassle, if they knew violence was probably going to break out, and maybe , just maybe seeing your father beaten for being a moron would help the poor little brainwashed kids.

They want to use the law to hide behind that's fine, but the law cannot really protect them. And that is a fact they really need to learn.
 
sadhatter said:
See though, we wouldn't be on their grounds with violence. They are hiding behind the law, like that kid in school who takes your twinkie then runs behind the teacher. If you let that kid keep taking your twinkies , your not going to have any, and he has your number by using the authority figures as a place to hide.

So do what many people have done when the law is protecting a group that is simply out to cause harm. Break it. From a practical standpoint you have most of the population for you, and will get positive press, and some quick cash from the talk show circuit to mitigate any jail time. And are they going to keep this up when their insurance goes through the roof? Think of how high their premiums would be if it was a known fact that at least one member would get beat per protest? And think of the cities that wouldn't want the hassle, if they knew violence was probably going to break out, and maybe , just maybe seeing your father beaten for being a moron would help the poor little brainwashed kids.

They want to use the law to hide behind that's fine, but the law cannot really protect them. And that is a fact they really need to learn.
Click to expand...

You won't defeat a group like that by mild beatings. They will have someone in hospital, and they will sue whoever beat him to get his house, and to get him jail time. They'll get sympathy and money and publicity - everything they want. Nothing would suit them better than mildly violent attacks.

The only way to practically stop them would be to murder most of them. This would be a bad idea because it would be wrong. It would be out of all proportion to the annoyance that they cause. It would have all kinds of bad consequences. But anything less is feeding them.

They aren't important. They aren't a big issue. They are just an aberration of the laws on free speech. And they can be suppressed and corralled with a bit of ingenuity and a sense of humour.
 
westprog said:
You won't defeat a group like that by mild beatings. They will have someone in hospital, and they will sue whoever beat him to get his house, and to get him jail time. They'll get sympathy and money and publicity - everything they want. Nothing would suit them better than mildly violent attacks.

The only way to practically stop them would be to murder most of them. This would be a bad idea because it would be wrong. It would be out of all proportion to the annoyance that they cause. It would have all kinds of bad consequences. But anything less is feeding them.

They aren't important. They aren't a big issue. They are just an aberration of the laws on free speech. And they can be suppressed and corralled with a bit of ingenuity and a sense of humour.
Click to expand...

Violence is too risky.

On the other hand, a bottle of rohypnol, some gay bikers and a motel room out in the desert... :cool:


ETA; Oh, and a video camera, of course.
 
Last edited:
Here's a question: is his behavior indicative of mental illness, or his he just nasty?

You certainly don't have to be crazy to be intolerant. But at what point can we say that a person has crossed over from the realm of run of the mill nasty intolerance and into the world of crazy?
 
Schrodinger's Cat said:
Here's a question: is his behavior indicative of mental illness, or his he just nasty?

You certainly don't have to be crazy to be intolerant. But at what point can we say that a person has crossed over from the realm of run of the mill nasty intolerance and into the world of crazy?
Click to expand...

In Phelps' case, it's relatively simple, (and this is backed up by Nate Phelps' extraordinary articles and postings): Fred Phelps is simply one of the nastiest smears of flesh ever to desecrate this rock. Ever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom