TheAgitator.com
And Now…
Saturday, December 22nd, 2007…a very special holiday message from the Westboro Baptist Church, home of Fred “God Hates Fags” Phelps. Be sure to stick out for the last 20 seconds or so.
http://view.break.com/278059 - Watch more free videos
67 Responses to “And Now…”
Leave a Reply
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License.
Is it possible that WBC is an elaborate scheme involving paid actors to discredit the anti-gay movement?
Because this is just beyond parody…
What’s up with the random Canadian flag towards the end? The general insanity of that thing, sadly, I expect out of them, but I didn’t know they were surrealists.
Wow. Not much can make my skin crawl, but that sure did.
How can you comment on something like this without thinking its 1) a joke or 2) being drawn in to an unwinable argument?
I guess I just don’t “get” the idea that some people have accepted that their Creator has determined that those who have not followed his way are doomed forever, yet that true followers must then torment and antagonize the doomed anyway just, well, just because. Sort of the “nanny-nanny boo-boo” of theology.
Wild.
Here’s to free thought, open minds, and the hope that someday folks find the answers they seek….more of a Google-esque dream, or even a Wikipedia-sans-hoaxes dream.
Well, that just killed my appetite. These bronze-age superstitionists seem to be a fusion of the worst intolerance of religion, the KKK and the Nazi Party.
No relation.
Wow.
Just… Wow.
This has GOT to be a parody.
Please?
*sigh*
LMAO…THAT IS PRICELESS!!!!
I’m waiting for Fred to die so I can show up at HIS funeral carrying a sign that reads: GOD HATES ASSHOLES!
What bunch of in-bred idiots. They make a very good case for just banning religion outright.
It’s possible they could be bankrupted on the copyright violation (unless they are paying royalties, which is so unlikely). Just a thought, I’d love to see Fred Phelps taken down by something that he isn’t expecting.
Check out http://www.hatemongers.com — Fred and family come across as very intelligent … and funny. I think the ‘God hates fags’ thing is the most brilliantly conceived and executed performance art ever.
They’re definitely not joking, as much fun as that is to contemplate. Anyone interested in Phelps should check out http://www.blank.org/addict/ , a really good book on him and his family.
When watching this you do want to believe that it’s a parody, but one even beyond the irreverent humor of people like South Park’s Parker and Stone… But then you realize that those happy smiling faces all probably believe what they are saying…
It’s pretty amazing…
One thing though… Didn’t these douchebags just lose an $11 million dollar lawsuit? How do they even have the money to continue their hate campaigns?
“How do they even have the money to continue their hate campaigns?”
There’s no shortage of people willing to donate money in the name of hate…especially good god fearing christians.
Those are some fugly people.
Please don’t associate these people with true Christianity.
Christians have nothing to do with either hate or the Phelps clan. Unfortunately, our culture is full of people claiming to be Christians who can’t seem to shut up, and Phelps is little more than a complete parody of them.
I actually thought it was convincing. The siege is coming!
Just the idea that they claim it’s “too late to pray” and “it’s too late to change His mind” seems to go against any possible version of Christianity…I mean, if you don’t have a God through which you can receive redemption, what are you left with?
SICK! SICK!
The little girl at the end just broke my heart.
As a Christian, there’s a Bible verse that comes to mind:
“But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” - Matthew 18:6
I believe those people have a shock in store for them when they meet their maker.
Apparently God doesn’t believe in good grooming either.
Great, now I’m going to Hell for brushing my hair and plucking my eyebrows.
Also, I’d really rather not go to a Heaven solely populated by these people. Isn’t there some kind of happy medium between a Heaven Full of Evil Asshats, and a Hell Full of My Relatives?
If it’s too late to change His mind, why are they haranguing us to stop our proud sinning? Might as well enjoy ourselves now since we’re all damned to hell for eternity anyway.
I’m with fishbane…I wanna know why they had that Canadian flag. Since it was upside down I’m inclined to believe it was in disapproval, like some sort of South Park-esque “Blame Canada” effort.
Oh god.
I am with you Katie. That part with the little girl at the end is child abuse.
Am I the only one who thinks that perhaps Fred Phelps sucked a few dicks in his day and feels rather guilty about it?
Hmmm. My God doesn’t hate sexy lesbians enjoying a good scissoring session. Fred stop deceiving your followers and preventing them from realizing true enjoyment and satisfaction.
meetmeineleusis,
I was thinking the same thing. All the women look like they come from the same family. Wait, they probably do…..
Poor Canadians, if they aren’t being referred to as the 51st state, they’re being associated with people like this. They can’t win.
Watching this, I can’t escape the feeling that Phelps and his crowd are all some sort of Borat-like charade that has just gone on way too long.
Eh, usually I’m sort of weary of the “bash gays=you are gay” argument, but in this case it seems to be a very profound psychological condition for Mr. Phelps. I wouldn’t be surprised if evidence surface that he were gay. But who cares? His entire movement revolves around the premise that if anything bad ever happens on Earth then we sinned. Volcanic eruption? Too much gay sex. Earth-destroying asteroid? Too much gay sex. And so on, and so on. Anyone this irrational should be just ignored. So, although I appreciate Radley posting this video clip . . . wouldn’t it just be better to ignore these losers?
It’s 3:30 am here, so I don’t want to wake my family, and I think I just burst a blood vessel trying to smother my laughter at “(So just stop it!)”
The woman in the blue sweater snapping “in time” to the music like some sort of demented Frank Sinatra didn’t help.
Leaving aside the issue of how people can actually believe this claptrap, what on earth do they think this will accomplish?
The thing I find a bit worrying is that nobody in the libertarian blogosphere seems to be bothered by the fact that these people have been fined $11 million for exercising free speech.
Lloyd:
I actually agree with you. The federal Funeral anti-protesting laws are profoundly illibertarian and should be opposed on principle. It’s pretty hard for me to imagine how any libertarian can justify $8 million dollars in punitive damages for protesting a funeral.
As for the Phelps clan itself… they are certainly a vile group. But you really have to admire the sheer joy they get from giving society-at-large a great big middle finger. You can see the pleasure on their faces as they sing about fellow human beings burning in hell for all eternity.
When they were picking on gays and protesting gay funerals, I thought they were cowards. It doesn’t take a lot of courage to pick on ostracized minorities, after all. But after they started protesting military funerals… you have to give it to them, they have guts. There’s no way better way to get yourself universally despised (and potentially shot) than protesting military funerals.
Bill wrote: “Am I the only one who thinks that perhaps Fred Phelps sucked a few dicks in his day and feels rather guilty about it?”
That made me spit beer! : )
I also agree with the “free speech” argument. I also think that if you exericise your right to “free speech” at a funeral to belittle and sully a family’s memory during what has to be the most difficult time in their lives is:
a: Just about as anti-christian as you can get.
b: It also entitles family members/friends to exercise a little “free ass-kicking” which is exactly what I would do.
I keep waiting for some pissed off mom/dad/sibling/aunt/uncle etc. to just take them all out. I won’t shed any tears. The world is full of enough nut-jobs that I would hope that one of them might forego their idiotic mall shootings of innocent people and maybe take a whack at these folks…not that I condone that sort of thing…usually. I guess if Pat Robertson can pray for assasinations and hurricans to kill people, I can hope some nut job takes out Phelps and his merry unwashed band of in-bred outcasts.
I’m honestly trying to figure out what man is desparate enough to reproduce with those nasty, unwashed, homely, in-bred women…and I might have just answered my own question with the term “in-bred.” They are just nasty.
Okay, I’ve put up with @#$% song existing long enough. How do I contact Quincey Jones? I’m sure he’d want to know how his melody is being used.
Freaking Hell! I can’t get that song out of my head! I’m doomed!
Thanks. I really needed that. Now I have to go look at chicksnbreasts.com to get the images of those women out of my head and jam some Black Sabbath to attempt an exorcism of that song.
I hope I never ever meet one of these people. I am sure I could not resist the urge to put my foot in their ass.
As a Canadian, I think I can explain the Canadian flag. Yes, it’s a “blame Canada” sort of thing, but it does have a reason, from their bizarre point of view. Canada made gay marriage legal recently (I can’t remember if it was this year or last), and this must have been recorded soon after that. If I remember right, Sir Elton John came here to get married.
I can easily understand the angst people feel when they hear this sort of thing, but we must remember that we all want to support freedom of speech. We must not say, simply because some misguided group of individuals spouts a message with which we do not agree, that they should be silenced or beaten. I disagree strongly with their way of communicating their perspective, but I do not wish for them to be forcibly silenced. After all, that is the tactic of large governments which many of us libertarians have so long despised; why should we mimic them? Just remember that there will always be people who are outraged at your ideas (no matter what you believe, there is always someone who will hate it), and would we want them to silence us? Wouldn’t we want to be free to express our thoughts? I say let these people make their songs and march in protest, and as long as they do not impede me or any others in the exercise of my/their constitutional rights, I see no harm in their actions.
And, of course, there’s the issue of their “faith”. I know that many people here have stated how these people are demonstrative of why Christianity is a nut-case, bigot sort of religion. As a Christian myself, I know that what these people are doing is nothing short of using religion as a spring-board of sorts to garner more attention. They do not display the compassion and caring that Christians are supposed to show to their neighbors. Just because Christians do not agree with homosexuality does not mean that they should try to insult gays. And, more seriously, who are these people to presume that they can speak on God’s behalf? To think that they have such power is contrary to the religion they claim to profess.
Finally (for all of those who think that all Christians are like this), let’s compare this situation to the current Islamic situation. We’ve all seen the press on Muslims and some of the hateful, murderous things which are said by a portion of the Muslim population…and yet the Islamic religion is not held responsible for this. What, then, do we do? We call the misguided ones what they are: extremists. We do not hear on (most) of the news broadcasts that the entire Islamic religion is corrupt and evil. We hear about a peaceful religion which has a few nut cases. So remember that the oft-published antics of a portion of a population does not necessarily reflect with any degree of accuracy the core beliefs and ideals held by the entire population. Just some food for thought!
And as long as Canada keep hockey alive, they’re good in my book!
Cheers,
-JSB
I don’t know why Libertarians should be outraged by the fine.
The way I see it, we always have to draw a line somewhere as to where my rights end and yours begin. It seems quite reasonable to me to say that you shouldn’t be allowed to turn my family’s funeral into a ludicrously offensive, over-the-top idiot fest.
It also seems quite reasonable to me that if you do this literally hundreds of times, that eventually somebody will try to stop you using whatever means are at their disposal.
This is just the invisible hand of the market saying “You have pissed off so many people that you lost your right to protest, and lost your right to turn funerals into cash-cow photo ops.”
I’m all for freedom, but if you go around claiming Phelps shouldn’t have been fined you’ll do enormous damage to the Libertarian label, as it will appear that we’re all lunatics who don’t give a shit anybody anyone.
He’s like that guy from Poltergeist.
I don’t think that protesting at the funerals of private citizens is protected speech.
The fat lady on the far right appeared on a Michael Moore´s tV show with them. That´s real, not a parody.
Kevin,
It’s true that any political system has to establish a philosophy for the delineation of rights. For libertarians, the two most widely recognized fundamental principles are: The Non-Aggression Principle, and some kind of legitimate property rights regime founded upon the just acquisition of property. If the Phelps group (1) didn’t use physical violence against anyone, thus violating the NAP and (2) didn’t violate anybody’s property rights through trespass or some other method — then they’ve violated nobody’s rights, and they shouldn’t be punished. If in fact they are guilty of a property rights violation, such as trespass - well, then they should pay restitution to the party whose property rights they’ve violated. I doubt they have, but if they’ve violated anyone’s property rights, it would have been the cemetary owners. Even so, I fail to see how a simple trespass could possible accrue a legitimate multi-million dollar claim in restitution.
People don’t have any legitimate right not to be belittled. If someone claims that God hates me because of my sexuality, or that God wanted an IED to kill a family member — I think that’s pretty vile, but it doesn’t violate anybody’s _rights_.
It may be true that people will have a negative view of libertarians if libertarians defend Fred Phelps’ free speech rights. But frankly, so what? If it’s RIGHT to object to an unjust abrogation of someone’s legitimately held speech rights - well, unpopularity may be the price one pays for being consistent and principled, and it’s better to be _right_ than popular.
I believe Phelps and co are going by one of many honest interpretations of the Bible. There’s no rule for how you should balance the various contradictions in the Bible. The Bible says God hates the world. It also says he so loved the world that he sent his only son yada yada. Phelps illustrates the futility of basing your life and values on an ancient book.
Someone else posted this link http://www.blank.org/addict/ but it shows just what sort of person Fred Phelps is. If he thought he could get the attention condemning people who are left handed, he would. 2 or 3 of the kids got out, the rest are now sucking their own kids into that. Serious case of Stockholm syndrome in that family. Their all lawyers and sue at the drop of a hat. Other people started catching on to their brand of crazy in the last 10-20 years, but people in Kansas and Topeka especially,have know it for 30+ years.
Happy christmas!
JJH2,
Is there a new “libertarian” flavor of kool-aid, or have you just not yet moved on from Robert Ringer’s, “Restoring the American Dream”?
Hang in there, slugger. Your views will get more sophisticated yet. They certainly couldn’t get less.
Greg,
I’m sure there’s some planet on which lame ad hominems and obfuscatory personal attacks constitute intelligent and civil dialogue, but that planet is not Earth. Disagree with me if you want, but at least I have the decency of putting my arguments out there in a clear, straightforward manner, which facilitates honest dialogue and intelligent criticism. If want to attack my premises — they’re out there for inspection. That you choose to snipe from the sidelines. Well… speaks for itself.
JJH2,
Some things don’t require debate or argument. They’re better left being mocked. Like this video we’re discussing, for instance, or the non-aggression principle.
Pardon me if I’m over dorm-room style debates on what constitutes “real libertarianism”. Besides, shouldn’t you be saving up those arguments for the next kids’ edition of the “Journal of Libertarian Studies”?
Oh, there I go again.
Merry Christmas!
Greg,
The Non-Aggression principle can be rephrased as the simple proposition that it’s wrong to use violence or the threat of violence against innocent people. Maybe you think this is a profoundly ridiculous proposition that has no basis in reality. I think, however, that you will find that, understood this way, it is in principle, one of the most widely accepted moral maxims humanity has come up with. Now, just because many people purport to believe in it in principle doesn’t make it _right_ — but if you’re going to reject it, you should feel compelled to at least offer, you know, some kind of reason for it.
To be frank, if you reject the NAP in principle, I find it hard to imagine what other principle of justice or morality you DON’T feel fit to just wave your hand at and dismiss.
But hey, feel free to respond with some more petty and pointless sniping!
JJH2,
Libertarians have been hashing this out for decades, and since I’m pretty well caught up on it all, I don’t feel the need to argue it out on Radley’s blog with one of the few libertarians left who still dogmatically hangs on to the “NAP” as if it were a legitimate tool for solving public policy problems.
The NAP is a nice starting point for political philosophy, but that’s all it is. Political sophistication begins when we recognize that the NAP isn’t universal, that it has many, many exceptions, and that public policy problems are most likely solved within the range of those exceptions.
It simply won’t do to say “taxation is theft” and pretend you’ve engaged in some kind of sophisticated analysis of tax reform.
If you’re wondering whether any libertarians reject the universal applicability of the NAP, look up “Ludwig von Mises” and “F.A. Hayek”.
And lay off the commas, man. You’re a comma addict.
I doubt that $11 million verdict will survive the appeals. But it should have been tossed out of court without even requiring the Phelps’ to mount a defense. The Phelpsians were protesting 1,000 feet from the funeral. They were not trespassing. They did not disrupt the funeral. The father of the dead soldier did not even see them that day; he learned about the protest from the news the next day. To support this verdict is to give the emotionally fragile a veto over anything anyone says anywhere.
I doubt that $11 million verdict will survive the appeals. But it should have been tossed out of court without even requiring the Phelps’ to mount a defense. The Phelpsians were protesting 1,000 feet from the funeral. They were not trespassing. They did not disrupt the funeral. The father of the dead soldier did not even see them that day; he learned about the protest from the news the next day. To support this verdict is to give the emotionally fragile a veto over anything anyone says anywhere.
Greg,
There are a few things about which you appear to be mistaken. For example, I’m not interested in making a “sophisticated analysis of tax reform.” Why? Well, because as any consistent, principled libertarian should be, I’m necessarily an anarchist and completely opposed to government taxation. Since I don’t want to “reform” the tax system, but rather abolish it, I don’t make arguments for the purposes of engaging in “sophisticated analysis” of it from a “public policy” perspective.
You may think this is “unsophisticated” - but well, a position is not _right_ or _wrong_ based on how “sophisticated” it is from a “public policy” perspective, but rather, whether it’s, well, right or wrong.
You may be of the opinion that it’s acceptable to utilize violence against innocent people who have not violated any of your rights. Okay, well why? I am curious. If you’re going to take the position that such an action is somehow _justified_ it behooves you to explain why this is somehow compatible with any worthwhile political philosophy.
Since, to this point, you have not bothered to make any intelligent arguments regarding anything, I’m not holding my breath. But feel free to insult me, tell me that my views on tax policy aren’t “sophisticated” from a “public policy” view point, and insult my use of commas. Anything except, you know, addressing any substantive point.
http://www.godhatesfigs.com/
FIrst: the commas. Please get a hole of those little guys. Mix in a semicolon now and then. Hell, I’d even allow a run-on or two. But the comma overkill has to stop.
Ordinarily, your admission that you’re an anarchist would be the end of this discussion, as I’ve no use for discussions with kooks.
But it’s Christmas, I’m bored, and dinner won’t be ready for a few more minutes, so why not?
My use of tax reform was what we call an “example.” I don’t know what you think of taxation, and I don’t care. My point was that if one’s analysis of taxation is that “it’s theft” and therefore no more analysis is needed, then that person is not to be taken seriously among adults.
Sometimes we “utilize violence” against people because, without violence, some things wouldn’t get done. Free rider problems, externalities, etc. make it difficult to produce optimum amounts of, e.g., police and military protection, contract enforcement, and so some amount of coercion is necessary to allow the market to work its magic.
Hell, even Mises recognized that conscription might be justified in the event of an imminent military attack. I guess that makes him something other than a “consistent, principled libertarian.” Right. Mises and Hayek: communists; JJH2: libertarian super hero.
Now, before you go tell me to read Murray Rothbard, Anthony de Jasay, or Hans-Hermann Hoppe, or Tyler Cowen’s book on externalities, or David Friedman (who, by the way, rejects the universal applicability of the NAA), just save it, because I’ve already read all of those too
Greg,
A few pointers. First, calling me a kook doesn’t impact, either way, the validity of my positions. Second, pointing out that XYX-famous-libertarian also advocates heinous violations of peoples’ rights (like conscription) — also doesn’t impact the validity, or invalidity of a position. It’s _wrong_ and _immoral_ to conscript people to fight for you at the point of a gun because it’s human slavery. And it’s wrong and immoral even if Mises is the one who, wrongheadedly, advocated it.
Finally, you can waive your hands in the direction of arguments all you want, but that doesn’t explain say, how a supposed free rider problem justifies the use of force against someone. There are lots of wonderful things that I would like to get done, that may not get done if I can’t convince someone to voluntarily do them for me (like say, make dinner). But supposing I can’t get someone to agree voluntarily to do that, it’s not clear to me how “I would like that to be done” magically transforms into a justification for the use of force against a person. If I can’t get a person, or a group of people, to voluntarily agree to do something, well, I guess I’ll just have to live with it not getting done.
You’ve done it; I’m convinced.
Well, I’m tired of this at any rate. So, you win.
Congratulations!!!
I would like to respond to Mike Leatherwood - not all that whiney “skin crawling” palaver. . .
Just the part where (it) lies and says that the prophets of God, throughout the ages have not mocked right back at the idolators. Read these words, you silly willy:
1 Kings 18:22 Then said Elijah unto the people, I, even I only, remain a prophet of the LORD; but Baal’s prophets are four hundred and fifty men.
23 Let them therefore give us two bullocks; and let them choose one bullock for themselves, and cut it in pieces, and lay it on wood, and put no fire under: and I will dress the other bullock, and lay it on wood, and put no fire under:
24 And call ye on the name of your gods, and I will call on the name of the LORD: and the God that answereth by fire, let him be God. And all the people answered and said, It is well spoken.
25 And Elijah said unto the prophets of Baal, Choose you one bullock for yourselves, and dress it first; for ye are many; and call on the name of your gods, but put no fire under.
26 And they took the bullock which was given them, and they dressed it, and called on the name of Baal from morning even until noon, saying, O Baal, hear us. But there was no voice, nor any that answered. And they leaped upon the altar which was made.
27 And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked.
28 And they cried aloud, and cut themselves after their manner with knives and lancets, till the blood gushed out upon them.
29 And it came to pass, when midday was past, and they prophesied until the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice, that there was neither voice, nor any to answer, nor any that regarded.
Now that does not appear that Elijah was tolerant or otherwise kind to these doomed Baal worshippers, and in fact a few verses later - he slaughters them.
So stop lying, you hypocrite. Either you love God and are most pleased with his wrathful vengeance, or you simply hate God!
- Abi Phelps, Westboro Baptist Church member
Oh look, one of the nutcases is commenting here! This should be fun.
The sad fact is that these folks are either 1) evil, or 2) crazy. Or evil and crazy - I can’t decide. But by no stretch of imagination can I imagine these folks representating a Good God. If anything, if there is an epic struggle between God and Satan, these folks have been deceived by Satan and are actually his representatives.
Of course, not Anton Levy Satanism, right?
Wouldn’t it be righteous justice if they ended up in Hell, instead of their expect Heavenly visit? After all, they aren’t doing anything Good on Earth, or at least what a “Good” God would consider “Good.” In fact, since they are already condeming others, they really have ZERO idea if they are indeed going to Heaven, and using their logic, they may end up in Hell with the rest of us! And according to original sin, they are sinners along with those they condemn - so what makes them so righteous as chosen ones?
And the strange irony is that they are saying it’s too “late” to stop sinning, since God isn’t listening to prayers, but we should “stop sinning” anyway. Well, that doesn’t make a bit of logical sense, does it?
Oh, and one of the evil, crazy Satan worshippers have paid a visit here!
“So stop lying, you hypocrite. Either you love God and are most pleased with his wrathful vengeance, or you simply hate God!”
What inane simplistic logic. What’s worse, is that this Abi doesn’t even realize what a hypocrite she is, especially when she mentions “love,” “Wrathful vengeance,” and “hate” in the same phrase.
Why would we love a God that hates us and wants to wreck vengeance on us, especially if he doesn’t listen to prayers? That would be incredibly stupid.
That sounds more like Cthulhu then anything else - are you sure, Abi, you don’t worship an agless deity that slumbers deep in the ocean? Abi the high priestess!
I’m not really interested in entering a long debate (or continuing one), but I do have to say my piece here.
People who believe in an all-powerful and benevolent god shouldn’t be claiming that it’s too late to be saved. If I remember correctly, the Bible says that all you have to do is repent and you shall be forgiven, even on your deathbed.
Also, Jesus advocated turning the other cheek, did he not? He also said, and I’m paraphrasing here, let not your right hand know what your left is up to. Did he not tell us to pray in locked in a room where nobody could see us (i.e. be humble)?
These people are the biggest cafeteria-Christians ever. Pick what they want out of the Bible so long as it fits their views.
What gives with these Old Testament Christians? The whole point of CHRISTianity is the gospel of the New Testament and the word of Jesus. Jesus said (paraphrase) hey, I’m here now, my daddy loves you, so don’t sweat all that old stuff. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, love thy neighbor as thyself… Love, peace, little children, blah blah blah.
So what reasonable Christian goes around quoting Kings?!?
That’s right, they don’t.
The WBC is not a Christian church, not by any stretch of the imagination.
With love,
Your friendly neighborhood well-read atheist.
Abi, what have you done to stretch your theological mental muscles? I do hope you wake up someday to your own evil and live to regret your foolishness.
One musical observation - This song’s melody is eerily similar to “We Are The World.” In fact, I think I see Kim Carnes belting away in the choir. Weird.
Oh you poor woman. Abi, you REALLY believe that drivel? You are basing your life and beliefs on centuries old writings done by the most part, by men who wiped their butts with their hand. Then the catholic church took those writings (that YOU base EVERYTHING on) and ommitted, purposely misinterpreted, and just plain mistakenly misinterpreted other parts and built the current bible to conmform to THEIR beliefs. That is just the BEGINNING of your problems. You then take these faulty, delusional, writings and use what fits YOUR dogma (hate, intolerance, etc.) and ignore the rest (mainly the teachings of Jesus…yep…I’m sure jesus would be yelling obscenities at grieving mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters just as I’m sure he would turn his back on the homosexuals).
You can spew all the gospel you like, but you can’t avoid the fact that your groups behavior is nothing short of evil and wicked spirited as you can get. To preach is one thing…to attack families in their most vulnerable time and to use THEIR tragedy to grandstand and vomit up that garbage that you do is disgusting to ALL but yourselves. You guys are a cult in the most base meaning of the word.
At this point, given your fanatacism and your obvious unwillingness to show any semblance of respect for your fellow man and your willingness to go to great lengths to hurt people that have never done a thing to you (all in the name of god of course), I’m not so sure that you folks aren’t dangerous to the rest of us. I hope I’m wrong, but I keep having images of David Koresh and Jim Jones with a splash of fantatical muslim terrorist thrown in. Hope I’m wrong.
Hey folks–
Don’t vote down Abi Phelps’ comment…I don’t agree with a single word she’s saying, but her argument is germane to the thread, and she was addressing a previous comment with an actual argument, not mere invective. She may be filled with hate and batshit crazy theology, but she isn’t trolling. (At least not here.)
(I voted ya’ up, Abi. Happy New Year.)
B
(Free speech-loving atheist)
edit: not only mere invective…
“Judge not, lest ye be not judged. For with whatever judgement ye judge ye shall be judged, and with whatever measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Why do you behold the speck that is in your brother’s eye but do not perceive the beam that is in your own eye. Ye hypocrites, first remove the beam from your own eye then ye will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”