Westboro Baptist Church
|
|
| Also listed in: Campus Progress Blog |
Everyone has probably already heard about the ruling against the Westboro Baptist Church ordering the organization to pay $10.9 million to the relatives of a Marine killed in action. Now, I believe I may be the only atheist who views this as a bad idea. I don’t know all the exact facts on the subject, but do know that the jury said that the church “invaded the privacy of the dead man’s family and inflicted emotional distress.” Which, of course, they did. But, even so, the First Amendment still protects freedom of religion and the right to peacefully assemble. Granted, the organization's posters and slogans can be viewed as being "not peaceful"--but these are just words. Hideous words, but still, just words.
If we allow the government to curtail the rights of religious organizations, we begin walking down a dangerous path. Where do we draw the line for what religious organizations are allowed to do? Do we start writing laws making certain religious practices illegal on the grounds that they offend the majority? For some reason I can’t help but think of the poem “First they came…” by Pastor Martin Niemoller.
Is my thinking flawed? Am I not seeing the bigger picture?
If we allow the government to curtail the rights of religious organizations, we begin walking down a dangerous path. Where do we draw the line for what religious organizations are allowed to do? Do we start writing laws making certain religious practices illegal on the grounds that they offend the majority? For some reason I can’t help but think of the poem “First they came…” by Pastor Martin Niemoller.
Is my thinking flawed? Am I not seeing the bigger picture?
!
I think that what the protesters did was wrong and disrespectful of what I think should be the family's right to peacefully morn their loss. $10 million is a little steep, and I'm unsure that the church should be the responsible party - what about the protesters themselves?
At the same time that I think the First Amendment should be protected and that this is an uncomfortable step away from freedoms of religion, assembly, and speech. But when do these people cross the line from religious protesting to harassment?
Here is a hypothetical: I’m walking down the street wearing a skirt and a tank top, and a person of more conservative religious beliefs (many faiths have groups that believe in cover one’s body) starts yelling at me for being indecent. Is this religious expression or am I being harassed? How is this different from what took place at the funeral (aside from the obvious degree of disrespect)?
But the issue at hand is the case. The group was fined money because they “invaded the privacy of the dead man’s family and inflicted emotional distress.” They didn't get in trouble for hateful speech, inciting a riot, violence, threats or anything else of that matter.
Yes, I get the larger issues. Yes, I understand the constitutional protections that he receives are the same that I do, and that taking his means mine are less safe (that's why I'm an ACLU member, after all). I get all the arguments about incremental erosion of liberty and slippery slopes, and all that.
But I just don't really mind the Phelps ruling, especially in the grand scheme of things. As Bush reminded us today, 'we're at war'. If this lame-ass excuse can be used to justify the suspension of habeus corpus, indefinite secret detentions, waterboarding, extraordinary rendition, illegal wiretapping, telecom immunity, and strip-searching British cabinet members, then I'm willing to let my concern for Fred Phelps take a breather for the time being.
It's almost certainly going to be thrown out on appeal, and it couldn't happen to a nicer group of jackasses. I'm just not capable of getting that worked up about it, and I'm perfectly happy to drink a toast to the health of every one of those jurors.
Though the ACLU lost my member card in the mail and then wouldn't send me a new one until I donate again. Oh, the lost social cachet! :(
Phelps and his merry little band of assholes do illustrate the benefits of knowing the law and knowing it well, though. Nearly all of their clan are lawyers, and they fund themselves in large part with lawsuit settlement checks any time someone crosses them without dotting the i's and crossing the t's.
I saw the Phelps gang up close and personal at the '05 inauguration. The parents were just pathetic, but seeing their kids there, happily waving their "Thank God for IEDs" sign, was heartbreaking. Reminded me of the few times I've ever seen neo-nazis in the flesh, the very same lack of humanity in the eyes.
So your argument is that because the Bush administration has repeatedly violated civil liberties, you don't mind more civil liberties being violated because for this particular instance you don't like the person?
Yeah, I'm pretty sure they'll be wanting their card back on that one.
So long as the first ten amendments (and the 14th, and most of Articles I and II) are being taken as guidelines rather than writ-in-stone commandments by the Administration, then I'm more than willing to enjoy this brief moment between ruling and appeal when someone who *actually deserves some serious misery* gets what's coming. I feel really bad for you if you're incapable of this bit of schadenfreude. If you can't learn to enjoy the little bits of unconstitutional overreach that really pale in comparison to the larger ones being perpetrated against all of us on a daily basis, then you're in for a very frustrating fourteen months.
Link