Hello Everyone! Including you who don't like Christmas. Ha! As I contemplated some of the subjects on this site, I was reminded of the great privilege we have of living in a nation where we can still exercise free speech on whatever topic, within reason, of course.
Just think, political thugs from other countries, who deny their citizens free speech, can come here to the USA and bash our country and anyone else's country, and get away with it. But, they would put their opponents in jail for speaking their minds in their own countries!
So, let us all thank God, atheists excluded , of course, for the privilege of doing what we can do on a site like this! And.let us, one and all, continue to speak our minds.
Pastor Bruce Oyen

People do not usually reject the Bible because it contradicts itself,
but because it contradicts them.

Father in heaven, You have given me so many material things, now I pray
for those things that will help me grow - understanding, kindness and
love.

AJS

Those were good thoughts. And the prayer was good, too.

Bruce Oyen

Thank goodness that we don't live in a theocracy and thank God that we have a secular Constitution that insures the free exchange of ideas for people of any or no faith.


[This message has been edited by Brian A. Reed (edited 9/23/2006).]

Doesn't "faith" in Brian count as faith?

Brian, you are certainly "right on"!! Many Muslim countries are suffering the consequences of living in a theocracy. Which means, they are not encouraged to think for themselves, or to do so publicly w/o regretting it.
Bruce Oyen

Richard, forgive my ignorance, but what do you mean?

Bruce Oyen

Mr. Oyen - I wasn't simply talking about Muslim theocracies, as uncomfortable following that line of thought might be to you.

Richard - I have faith enough to believe in and for myself.

Brian, I agree that any kind of theocracy would not be a good thing, unless the Lord himself was in charge. Anyone else would mess it up, royally!!

Speaking of royally messed up ideas:

http://www.bjconline.org/...n_pera.htm.

Thank you very much for the website. I read the article, and found it informative.

Otherwise known as the anti-ACLU Extortion Act of 2006.

Rick, I'm not sure how to interpret what you wrote. Care to explain?
Bruce

Rick apparently believes that only the wealthy should have access to the courts.

And even then, the courts might not be open:

http://www.washingtonpost...14_pf.html

From the fine article: "The definition applies to foreigners living inside or outside the United States and does not rule out the possibility of designating a U.S. citizen as an unlawful combatant."

Apropos of nothing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_War

Odd isn't it? You read these things and feel slightly ill and wonder, "When did America get to be so opressive? When did Europe, a place with a history full of tyranny, start to seem more in line to protect civil liberties than us?" But then you go, wait a minute, just how old is the Establishment clause? How long have we truly been enjoying free speech? Forty years ago America was blasting African Americans with hoses and unleashing attack dogs on them. This country is tumultuously going somewhere. Over the last fifty years or so, it has progressively become more liberal and open. Is it really any shock that it now wants to go backwards a bit? Especially considering the dismal educations we give our children- in particular where it concerns their freedoms and the world (geography, culture, and history).
Oh well, all we can do is keep up the good fight! Whatever we happen to consider it to be.

Bridgier and Jay,isn't this a fascinating way to talk issues? Good thing we can do it w/o fear of whatever!

Not entirely true. Your job can still dictate a lot of what you do, especially if you work for the government. I've lost a job over writing something the higher ups didn't like. And then there's all those who were monitored by the feds after 9/11 for being against the war and questioning the logic of the war on terror. But this certainly isn't Syria, and I do feel blessed to be here.
It just feels difficult to celebrate in our freedoms knowing we could lose them at almost any time, be it to someone at the end of a gun or through some piece of legislation.
Good thing unsere Gedanken sind frei! (our thoughts are free! German song. Nevermind.)

I thought the applicable german quote was "Arbeits macht frei", or perhaps "Gott mitt uns"

Good thing work will make us free? I don't get it.

Bridgier, I didn't say I was for the legislation. I'm just saying your characterization of it is very one-sided.

The intent of the legislation is to stop groups like the ACLU from coercing local municipalities by merely threatening huge legal bills as a means to extort the removal of religious content from the public square.

Our own Ten Commandments being removed here in Miles City are a perfect example. Were this legislation in effect at the time, that event likely would have never happened.

I'd be interested to hear what counter-examples you have... where Christian groups successfully extracted legal fees from the government while protecting their constitutional rights. I don't thing there's many (if any) examples of this, which is why the ACLU suddenly arguing on behalf of the Church (and conveniently itself) on this point rings so hollow.

But I still see the legislation as even less than a bandaid. The real problem is a legal system that is so unpredictable in its outcomes that nobody in their right minds dares go to court unless forced. The problem is that the litigation itself has become the end rather than the means.

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (edited 9/26/2006).]

The "good" people with the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) are still exercising their free speech rights by (among other things) picketing at the funerals of those killed in the line of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. I see that protesting at these funerals is a part of what they refer to as their "Love Crusades."
http://www.godhatesameric...index.html

An acquaintance emailed me last night to vent about WBC - guess they made an appearance at a military funeral in his hometown. He was sick at what he'd saw. After I read his email, I went to one of WBC's web sites for the first time . . . dang there's some ugly stuff there.

WBC really puts my belief in / support for free speech to the test. It's not always being tolerant and respectful of the rights of others, is it?

But I guess I still firmly believe that we must defend free speech, even when it means giving voice to despicable people who say despicable things. Defending WBC's right to spew out their hateful message is the only way I know of to make certain that we all can have a voice for our opinions.

And perhaps WBC does serve a useful purpose in reminding us how fortunate we are to live in a country with a clear line that separates church and state. If nothing else the "good" people with the Westboro Church are an excellent reminder of the evils of theocracy.

But this coming winter when I have some spare time, I think I will also exercise my right to free speech. I think I'll launch a crusade of my own. I think I'll dedicate some time and energy to providing folks with an opportunity to see just how ugly WBC's message is and what they'll do to achieve their goals.

As I mentioned in another thread - WBC does attempt to raise money from outside the ranks its congregation. I think I'll do what I can to call attention to the depths this group is willing to sink to in order to promote its agenda . . . spread the word (using my free speech rights) so that folks who are solicited for support by WBC will know just what kind of a group it is that's asking for their support.

"Montana House Votes For Restricting Funeral Protests"
By Alan Suderman, Associated Press Writer
GREAT FALLS TRIBUNE
March 7, 2007
http://www.greatfallstrib...70324/1002

"HELENA - The House endorsed a bill Tuesday that would make it illegal to protest at funerals.

The measure, sponsored by Sen. Joe Tropila, D-Great Falls, already has been approved in the Senate and faces a final vote, scheduled for Wednesday, before moving to the desk of Gov. Brian Schweitzer. The governor has not signaled whether he will sign the bill into the law.

If he does, Montana would join at least 30 other states with similar laws. The laws have been in reaction to the picketing of military funerals by the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan. The church, which has protested in Montana and several other states, says God is killing soldiers because America supports homosexuality. . . ."
= = = = = = = = = = =

Myself, I have mixed feelings about legislation like this. As much I detest these Westboro cretins and others of their ilk . . . as much as I hate to see the funerals of our honored dead be the scene of any protest (or political activity) that is not carried out with the family's expressed approval . . . I can, nonetheless, see where opponents of the legislation have a point.

I think the Marine whom Roger Koopman (R-Bozeman) quoted in the article, hit the nail on the head.

Myself, I think the best way to deal with these Westboro cretins is through the community - when folks refuse to condone, approve, or otherwise support their activities, they pretty much become powerless.
= = = = = = = = = = =

Has heard whether or not any of these Westboro cretins have been arrested in any of the states which have such a law already in place? Have any of the cretins been "brave" enough to get arrested in support of their "beliefs"?

Seems to me that is something that could be regulated by local ordinance. Aren't public gatherings required to have a parade permit or something along that line?

This may or may not pertain to the topic, but my pet peeve with this subject is the casual manner in which interpretations of the Bill of Rights are so contrived to support a particular argument of the moment, which of course always supports the position of the person talking.

I believe the aim of the first amendment was simply to protect citizens from being persecuted for criticizing the government. A person or group disrupting a funeral cannot be arrested for making anti-government statements, but there are other grounds on which they could be, like disturbing the peace or creating a public nuisance. The right to free speech doesn't carry an implied right to be heard.


[This message has been edited by T4TX (edited 3/26/2007).]

[This message has been edited by T4TX (edited 3/26/2007).]

I just don't understand why they would think that this is a good idea. "Let's promote our cause by doing the most obnoxious and inappropriate thing that anyone can think of". They say there's no such thing as bad publicity but I have to think every time one of those funeral protests is staged Westboro gains a couple hundred new people who hadn't heard of them before but now dislikes them intensely. Is that what they're after?

I don't know if I would support a law about protesting at funerals, but what they are doing is certainly disgusting.

On another thread, I was asked if I condone the behavior of the WBC because it is, "a cornerstone of the conservative movement". I replied that it made as much sense as the war protesters who spit at Iraqi war veterans. I was then accused of, "justifying bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior". Not true....just pointing out that there are idiots on both sides. Please note date of post:

http://glendive-mt.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=348&sid=d5b8a2d861dbba3ab5d23445a943564e

I was further accused of, "Mimi - anecdotal evidence is evidence of an anecdote, no more no less. You believe that anti-war protesters spit in soldier's faces, so when a soldier says he was spit on, you are inclined to believe him", and somehow saying that it was a pervasive happening. I never said any such thing, I merely said it happened at a rally in Washington. I know this is not in APA format and probably will not satisfy the likes of Bridger and Stone but that's not the point.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/washington/28protest.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5088&en=f1fcbb557b4a2453&ex=1327640400&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

The new bill does not restrict the free speech rights of the WBC, only where they can exercise those rights. They still have the right to spew out their venom all day long, just not within 1500 feet of a funeral. The same restrictions for distance have been placed on the right to lifers outside of abortion clinics for years and rightly so. It's important to note that this bill allows for the family to be able to sue. The bill in it's entirety:

http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2007/billhtml/SB0015.htm

Levi Forman wrote:
>>I just don't understand why they would think that this is a good idea. "Let's promote our cause by doing the most obnoxious and inappropriate thing that anyone can think of". They say there's no such thing as bad publicity but. . . .

My guess would be it builds up a sense of solidarity among those who are the "true believers". We see something similar to this play out quite often with non-mainstream groups (religious or otherwise). Their leaders place the group in position where they feel surrounded (threatened) by outsiders (non-believers). The leadership deliberately places the group in such a position that its members will feel persecuted. This in turn, encourages / enforces group unity. It results in a classic "Us against Them" dynamic. In this instance, it may not be all that effective in recruiting new members into their "congregation", but it is probably pretty effective in keeping existing members from defecting. If you've become a pariah - if you've violated societal taboos - it then becomes difficult then to leave the group and re-enter the mainstream.
= = = = = = = = = = = =

As I said before, I'm always reluctant to see incident-specific legislation passed that (however slightly) impinges on our Bill of Rights. And of course, such legislation has been enacted from day one and is going to continue to be passed - - but the less often we do so, the better off we'll likely be.

That being said, Mimi does raise an excellent point in the case of SB0015 - by giving families targeted by the Westboro cretins the ability to sue . . . the measure may prove to be very effective in curtailing their actions when it comes to military funerals.

How it will be construed and applied in the future and whether it is a good idea in terms of everyone's civil liberties, I can't say . . . we'll just have to see how it plays out.

Myself, I think the Westboro cretins are best countered by the community coming to the support of targeted families. From what I've saw in the papers, this community support already takes place in Montana and elsewhere (whether or not WBC is present or not).

While I was still in Montana, I attended the funeral of the son of old friends, a fine young man who was killed while serving in Iraq. Hundreds of people showed up for the service, so many in fact that most stood outside during the services. Literally (and I mean literally) thousands of people lined the route that the procession took the graveside (this for a distance of many miles). WBC was not present, but had they been they'd not likely have gotten close enough for the family to have even noticed.

I guess my point is . . . When good people stand up to be counted on the side of good - cretins like Westoboro really don't count for much at all.
= = = = = = = = = = = =

As always when it come to this topic, I'll exercise my speech rights and close by reminding folks that the cretins at Westboro do attempt to raise money from outside the ranks their "congregation". If you are solicited for support by this "church", please keep in mind just what kind of low-life, scum suckers they truly are, while you decide whether or not to give them your money or other support.

http://www.google.com/sea...tnG=Search

It results in a classic "Us against Them" dynamic. In this instance, it may not be all that effective in recruiting new members into their "congregation", but it is probably pretty effective in keeping existing members from defecting. If you've become a pariah - if you've violated societal taboos - it then becomes difficult then to leave the group and re-enter the mainstream.

So it's basically a cult. Interesting.