Search found 8 matches

by The Annoyed Man
Fri Apr 09, 2010 9:20 am
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Westboro Baptist Church
Replies: 61
Views: 7374

Re: Westboro Baptist Church

Abraham wrote:WBC's only ideology is generating money.

If they're recognized as a church then presumably they're a non-profit organization.

If that's so, I wonder if their books have been audited to mahke certain they comply with the tax guidelines of a non-profit?
I made much the same point earlier in the thread about their being a money generating machine. I would be curious to know what their tax status is, because they've definitely been quite profitable.

If they are officially recognized as a church, then the only people who believe that are the IRS and the 30 or so members of the "church," all of whom are related, by the way. It's actually more of a family owned business than a church.
by The Annoyed Man
Mon Apr 05, 2010 10:04 pm
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Westboro Baptist Church
Replies: 61
Views: 7374

Re: Westboro Baptist Church

marksiwel wrote:Now if one of them gets killed expect MORE trouble.
OK.... kill 'em all? :lol:
by The Annoyed Man
Mon Apr 05, 2010 10:03 pm
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Westboro Baptist Church
Replies: 61
Views: 7374

Re: Westboro Baptist Church

KD5NRH wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:They really are the devil's tools. I wouldn't make water on one if them if he were to burst into flame right in front of me.
So, it's safe to assume that you would as long as they're not on fire?
Absolutely!
I think I may be on to something here; would PC9.22 cover setting fire to someone to protect them from TAM's biological attack?
Now you're getting in the spirit! :mrgreen:
by The Annoyed Man
Mon Apr 05, 2010 1:39 pm
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Westboro Baptist Church
Replies: 61
Views: 7374

Re: Westboro Baptist Church

LarryH wrote:I'm with giga06 on most recent comment. One of the "jobs" of the police, I believe, is to maintain order. They are not protecting individual citizens in this case, but acting as a buffer between the groups, with the intention of making sure the heated emotions don't spill over into mob violence, as would be too easy.
Agreed in principle, but in actual fact, I believe that the SCOTUS disagrees with all three of us...

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
By LINDA GREENHOUSE (New York Times)
Published: June 28, 2005
WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

The decision, with an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and dissents from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado. The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman's pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed.

For hours on the night of June 22, 1999, Jessica Gonzales tried to get the Castle Rock police to find and arrest her estranged husband, Simon Gonzales, who was under a court order to stay 100 yards away from the house. He had taken the children, ages 7, 9 and 10, as they played outside, and he later called his wife to tell her that he had the girls at an amusement park in Denver.

Ms. Gonzales conveyed the information to the police, but they failed to act before Mr. Gonzales arrived at the police station hours later, firing a gun, with the bodies of the girls in the back of his truck. The police killed him at the scene.

The theory of the lawsuit Ms. Gonzales filed in federal district court in Denver was that Colorado law had given her an enforceable right to protection by instructing the police, on the court order, that "you shall arrest" or issue a warrant for the arrest of a violator. She argued that the order gave her a "property interest" within the meaning of the 14th Amendment's due process guarantee, which prohibits the deprivation of property without due process.

The district court and a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit dismissed the suit, but the full appeals court reinstated it and the town appealed. The Supreme Court's precedents made the appellate ruling a challenging one for Ms. Gonzales and her lawyers to sustain.

A 1989 decision, DeShaney v. Winnebago County, held that the failure by county social service workers to protect a young boy from a beating by his father did not breach any substantive constitutional duty. By framing her case as one of process rather than substance, Ms. Gonzales and her lawyers hoped to find a way around that precedent.

But the majority on Monday saw little difference between the earlier case and this one, Castle Rock v. Gonzales, No. 04-278. Ms. Gonzales did not have a "property interest" in enforcing the restraining order, Justice Scalia said, adding that "such a right would not, of course, resemble any traditional conception of property."

Although the protective order did mandate an arrest, or an arrest warrant, in so many words, Justice Scalia said, "a well-established tradition of police discretion has long coexisted with apparently mandatory arrest statutes."

But Justices Stevens and Ginsburg, in their dissenting opinion, said "it is clear that the elimination of police discretion was integral to Colorado and its fellow states' solution to the problem of underenforcement in domestic violence cases." Colorado was one of two dozen states that, in response to increased attention to the problem of domestic violence during the 1990's, made arrest mandatory for violating protective orders.

"The court fails to come to terms with the wave of domestic violence statutes that provides the crucial context for understanding Colorado's law," the dissenting justices said.

Organizations concerned with domestic violence had watched the case closely and expressed disappointment at the outcome. Fernando LaGuarda, counsel for the National Network to End Domestic Violence, said in a statement that Congress and the states should now act to give greater protection.
To me, that sounds like police do not have any kind of enforceable duty to protect. According to the court, they only have a duty to try and maintain order, and even at that, failure to do so does not open them up to any liability. As Ms. Gonzales found out, even a 4 hour gap between original notification of complaint and an actual response to the complaint (when the perp brought the fight to them) does not constitute a police failure with consequent liability. At least, that's how I read it. I'm just saying that there appears to be no legal obligation on the part of LEOs to protect or to keep the public order. If there had been, Gonzales' children might be alive today.

Even so, I believe that the vast majority of LEOs see themselves as sheep dogs and act accordingly.
by The Annoyed Man
Mon Apr 05, 2010 12:21 pm
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Westboro Baptist Church
Replies: 61
Views: 7374

Re: Westboro Baptist Church

tallmike wrote:How many of you cared when they protested at gay funerals?
I cared, and I'm a dyed in the wool evangelical Christian. I've been following these crazies since 1998, before 9/11, before Afghanistan, before Iraq, and they are evil to the bone. I tried emailing them to engage in a Christian discourse back then because I thought their hatred ran so afoul of Christ's teaching, yes, even regarding gays. You should see the vomit they spewed in response. I call strawman to your charge.
by The Annoyed Man
Thu Apr 01, 2010 11:55 am
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Westboro Baptist Church
Replies: 61
Views: 7374

Re: Westboro Baptist Church

mymojo wrote:And saying these guys aren't baptist is like saying the 911 hijackers weren't muslim. They may not sync up with our particular idea of what "baptist" means, that doesnt mean the term does not apply. This argument requires knowing what their core dogma and practices are.
Respectfully, the single largest Baptist organization is the Southern Baptist Convention. The precepts of the SBC are pretty much mirrored by every other Baptist affiliation of churches. Here is a link to the SBC doctrinal details. By tradition, Baptist churches are affiliated with a larger convention, which enables the affiliated churches to pool resources for such things as funding missionary work, and governing missionary behavioral expectations, and stuff like that; but each individual church is responsible for its own church government. However, all of those affiliated churches must be in line with the teaching of the larger convention in order to be members of that convention. These general guidelines are true of pretty much all Baptists churches... ...except one: the WBC. The WBC does not follow the spiritual guidelines necessary to a Baptist church. They are not in affiliation with any other Baptist church.

The WBC is made up entirely of Fred Phelps, his children, their spouses, and their children. Most of the members do not hold down productive jobs because they are always traveling to new locations for protests. Nearly every penny of the church's revenues derive from lawsuits, the proceeds of which are used to fund their protest activities. They are in the truest form NOT a Christian church, and they are NOT Baptists. They are an income generation machine which makes good money from spewing a message of hatred and intolerance.

With all due respect, I don't think you have a complete understanding of exactly who WBC is and what they do, and I believe your understanding of the Baptist approach to church government to be incomplete, and for that matter, what it means to be a Christian. Baptists are Christians first, and anything else second. This is also true for members of pretty much any other Christian denomination. WBC "Baptists," on the other hand, are completely willing to deny anything Jesus said if it conflicts with anything they say. I have had this conversation with them, and I have heard their representatives do as much on the radio. In other words, as people who deny Christ when his words conflicts with their own message of hate, they are by definition not Christians, and therefore, not Baptists (nor Presbyterians or Lutherans or Methodists or Catholics or any other denomination of Christian).

Please understand that I am not trying to preach Christianity here. I am trying to clear up a misunderstanding which causes apostates like the WBC to be lumped into true Christianity. It is a categorical error to do so, and it would automatically invalidate any argument one would make on a claimed knowledge of what it is to be a Baptist, or any other kind of Christian, for that matter.
by The Annoyed Man
Thu Apr 01, 2010 8:18 am
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Westboro Baptist Church
Replies: 61
Views: 7374

Re: Westboro Baptist Church

SwimFan85 wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:And by the way, they are NOT "Baptists."
I was waiting for someone to say they're "not Christian" like the Flying Over The Cukoo's Nest guys. Saying they're not baptists is a twist. What's the deal? Do they not practice adult baptism? Is there something else that disqualifies them from being baptists other than being nut jobs?

Now I'm waiting for someone to say the Pope is not Christian.
They aren't Christian either (and I never said the Pope isn't a Christian). My problem with the use of the word "Baptist" is that the Southern Baptist Convention, of which my church is an affiliate, gets a "guilt by association" bad rap from people because WBC has the word "Baptist" in their name. But they are no more Baptist than they are Christian.
by The Annoyed Man
Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:35 pm
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Westboro Baptist Church
Replies: 61
Views: 7374

Re: Westboro Baptist Church

They really are the devil's tools. I wouldn't make water on one if them if he were to burst into flame right in front of me.

And by the way, they are NOT "Baptists." However, they do a great deal of harm to the real Baptist denominations by name association. They are right about one thing... God is a just God, and they will be judged and found wanting — without an advocate in their corner. From an eternal perspective, they are to be pitied.

Return to “Westboro Baptist Church”