Yet another crazy group assuming they know how god feels about cigarettes.
(Westboro Baptist Church members)
picture: dunno source, via our lol builder. lol caption: ebookace
-
-
Copy & paste this:
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous Momma always said there’s a lot | Coming for Wii Chrismas 2010 Next »
Yet another crazy group assuming they know how god feels
» 249 comments
Leave a Reply
-
Recent Comments
Cheezburger Company BlogPrint on Demand
More I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER?
I Can Has Cheezburger? - Lolcats n Funny Pictures
Noo Simon's Cat: Tongue Tied
Lolcats - Lolcats n' Funny Cat Pictures
OMMMM....
I Has A Hotdog - Loldogs n Cute Puppies
Goggie GIF: Where Am I? What's Going on?
Animal Capshunz - All of the Internet's Animals. Captioned
Can Elephants Play a Rimshot?
Animal Gifs - Cute and Hilarious Animal Gifs
You Called??
Daily Squee - So cute your brain might explode.
Squee Spree: Loris Twinsies!
Historic LOLs - Captioned Portraits of Yore
Animal Gifs: Pillow for The Tramp
My Food Looks Funny - Funny Food Photos
You Like Meat? I'll Give You Meat!
So Much Pun - Visual Puns and Jokes
Falling for You
ROFLrazzi - Lol Celebs and All That's Fab Funny in Showbiz
When Did Meg Ryan Turn Into Mickey Rourke?
Totally Looks Like - Stuff That Looks Like Other Stuff
This Strawberry Totally Looks Like Goldfish Cracker
Must Have Cute - See. Want. Must Have!
OMG SHUT UP!
If Style Could Kill - OMG Style!
Work in Progress
Lovely Listing - Strange Findings in Real Estate Listings
Indoor Guard House
Wedinator - Your special day... is hilarious.
25 Cents a Wedding
Five Minute Getaway - Beautiful Travel and Vacation Photos
Pacheena Indian Reserve, British Columbia, Canada
Set Phasers to LOL - Sci Fi and Fantasy LOLs
"Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter" Red Band Trailer
Animal Memes - A Meme-nagerie of Famous Internet Critters
Insanity Wolf: I Don't Think it Means What You Think it Means
![\"Quantcast\"/](\"http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-94wNw88f65Rhk.gif?labels=MTVN%20Digital%20Tribes\")
If God hated cigarettes he wouldn’t have created them D=
Cigarettes are a choice. They aren’t natural. They could just choose to stay as tobacco if they were raised right.
Or they can be cured through God and therapists.
Then God said, “Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.” And it was so.
- Genesis 1:9-13
What about fungi which propagate through spores? Or is that later?
God didn’t create cigarettes. Man created cigarettes from plants he found.
That’s a rather rainbowy sign you’re holding there.
I’m not sure who is more worrisome … the idiots in the picture or the idiots that obsess over them.
Idiots in the picture. Idiots that obsess over them just are trying to fathom the stupid, which is more a hobby than anything else. The idiots in the picture actually go and bother people trying to grieve over dead loved ones.
Big difference if my humble opinion was to be counted.
If you gaze into the stupid, the stupid gazes also into you.
Heh. Good ‘un
I find the idiocy fascinating. Not in a good way, mind you. More of a morbid curiosity into the inner working of a mind that’s actually bent.
The idiots in the picture are very small in number. The idiots that obsess over them are much larger in number. The Obsessed Idiots hide many more bigots within their ranks than the Pictured Idiots could ever hope to display.
There are way more Pictured Idiots than sane people unfortunately.
Unfortunately they are loud, are growing, and already have more control over the republican party than any other group. It’s a sad world we live in when these fools are accepted by anyone, let alone a political party…
The rainbow was a sign of God’s covenant with Noah for Christians and Jews.
I’m not sure about this one – this was the best caption that we could get for the Phelps clan?
This caption is unique. Most of the LOLs about Westboro BC are redundant,
consisting mainly of “Fail,” “Christianity-Ur Doing it Rong,” etc.
If you search “westboro,” you can see the other captions.
So light was never refracted through rain for the global flood? Mmmmkay…
God MADE physics. he can do whatever he wants
It was. He just used that to remind us He’s not going to completely flood the earth again. (not that you probably care)
Hahah! that was awesome…
I like the sign that says we’re a “cigarette” nation, which kind of seems to go against the other posters’ messages.
Hey, it’s Marlboro Country …
Marlboro Country haz a flavur
Roffle! FAB ebookace!
Yay! I find this lol rather funny.
(And DAMN those tobacco growers.)
… I also suspect that this one won’t get as frothy in the comments as last time Westboro Baptist Church appeared in a lol (Feb 28th) – 1,386 comments atm. :p
Never underestimate the arrogance of people on the internets. Look at the latest caption that involved gay marriage- 600+ comments in a day.
Yes. (I prefer that kind of lol – outrageous comments are usually a better source of entertainment than the lols.) But I doubt anyone will start on the THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT CHRISTIANS – I AM CHRISTIAN AND MY GOD TELLS ME LOVE CIGARETTES!!!!!!!11!!!!!111 track.
.
But you’re right – I shouldn’t give up hope. ;p
Where there is politically charged subjects, morons will congregate.
Zen from the book of Ves.
:p
Is this where the Moron Congregation line starts? *sets up tent*
*sets up little Moron fence with space for them to play, and hands out little spray bottles, so we can spray any morons who refuse to play nice*
Also,
Dear Mr. Comment Eater,
It seems that once again you have taken to eating my comments. I have discussed this issue with many a person, and would like to inform you of one of the opinions gathered. Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church thinks that by eating so many comments you have become a “Hedonistic buffoon,” and the WBC is standing next to the server and yell at it for about 4 hours. To avoid this punishment, I suggest that you immediately cease all comment-eating and all normal operation to pass here on PunditKitchen.com. I once again hope to get this issue resolved in short order.
Thank you again,
Lefty
*sets up little Moron fence with space for them to play, and hands out little spray bottles, so we can spray any morons who refuse to play nice*
Also,
Dear Mr. Comment Eater,
It seems that once again you have taken to eating my comments, despite an earlier plea in another lol to stop. I have discussed this issue with many a person, and would like to inform you of one of the opinions gathered. Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church thinks that by eating so many comments you have become a “Hedonistic buffoon,” and the WBC is standing next to the server and yell at it for about 4 hours. To avoid this punishment, I suggest that you immediately cease all comment-eating and all normal operation to pass here on PunditKitchen.com. I once again hope to get this issue resolved in short order.
Thank you again,
Lefty
P.S.
Should you decide to regurgitate the comments, please do so into a proper receptacle, and not on the floor. Thank you.
I think this is my new favorite comment ever.
great sentiment but…why would God have a gender or sexual preference in the first place. if you’re an all loving, all powerful being, seems you’d easily be able to switch between. God must be Bi
Or just omni…
I think the technical term is pansexual. They don’t worry about gender. Though I like omni better since we are talking about a deity.
Pan’s are pretty hot.
I think both omni- and pansexuality would include all kinds of sexuality. They properly shouldn’t worry about gender, species or even presence of life.
So – Omnisexual = sufficiently drunk and horny…
And with just about anything within reach, yep.
That reminds me of a scene from Red Dwarf when Kryten is telling Lister all about Silicon Heaven. “But do’t you believe sir that all things have a living soul”. “Yeah Kryten but not household objects. I’m a Pantheist, not a Frying Pantheist”.
Brilliant!
Cigarettes XD Nice take on that one!
Clever caption is clever.
Bwahahahahaha! *applauds*
Oh god WIN
haha, I like this, especially since they just came here a week ago.
*nods* it is a bit impressive to be featured here twice in as many weeks. I guess it goes to show how influential these people are. I mean, come on Westboro, let someone -else- look like an idiot for a while, you’ll get your turn again XD
I just got home from work and you guys made me laugh myself silly!!!! I never thought of the smokes thing. I’m going to troll their sites now just to say it’s good they hate cigs. LOL
Oh, I expect they’re well aware of the UK’s existence! Don’t worry, the entire population is going to hell in a handbasket for legalising homosexuality – wonder if you’ll be anywhere near all of us in Ireland, who are going there for exactly the same reason?
Come on, you think you can keep the UK damned out of the Irish Hell? You’ll have to share at least 6/32 of it.
You just won the prize.
It will arrive when, how, and where you least expect it.
And then the delivery person will abruptly depart on vacation without his family for a few months, until the news coverage and investigations have petered out?
They’re aware of it- they just don’t think it’s an actual place.
Seriously? The UK told them they couldn’t go there? REALLY? That’s seven different kinds of awesome.
Now if only we could find a way to make them LEAVE ours and not come back…
That is a wonderful thought. But why stop there? Get them off the planet!
“God told us to tell you he wants you to go on a mission to convert the citizens of Zibnaglor. It’s a long flight, sorry….”
I love the UK just a little bit more now…thanks for sharing that fabulous piece of info, Pheemz!!
It made me most happy when the Home Secretary announced it.
We have our own hate mongering scum to deal with, no sense in importing more.
I would agree about removing those two from the planet, but then, I am
a little uneasy about us sending our trash to other planets, why should
they have to suffer from our garbage?
Send em’ to the sun.
Wait, so if we in the United States were to, just run with it, surrender to the UK they wouldn’t be allowed near us? Could we do a like five minute surrender deal, get them on a plane, and be free?
Canada did the same thing. One of the many reasons I love living here.
cigarettes are proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy
…or is it beer?
eh, I’m not one to discriminate.
God wants us to be beer?
Beer loves us and wants us to be happy.
Take it from an older budweiser friend; of coors beer loves us.
I guinness you’re right, pittypat.
I’m not schlitzing you.
It’s important to fosters a good attitude.
Heineken you do me a favor and never lose your optimism?
Pabst if I keep a good attitude, I will get a blue ribbon?
Nothing wrong with a bitter attitude.
But it’s just a hops, skip, and a jump from a sunny one!
I knew you’d Harp on this one all day…
Yeah, I just had to tap it.
You seem to lack some self control when the punning starts … What’s aleing you?
Hi my name is pittypat and I’m a punaholic.
I’m about to end up at the coronas office.
Only once in a Blue Moon will that happen, dear Pitty.
That’s right. We can all keep living the High Life.
We should be careful lest we become Imperially Stout.
Anheuser Mom doing by the way?
Only see her once in a Blue Moon.
Maybe if your weren’t such a Arrogant Bastard she’s come around dmore often.
(honest, if is a beer! click my name and see!)
Perhaps we should get a Newcastle to hold all of us during the celebration.
No need to beat around the Busch.
All this beer talk is giving me Corona-ry…
There’s a hospital at the end of the Boulevard. It’s easy to find with all the Natural Light on this sunny day.
Boo creepy foot doctor. Hooray, Beer!
I love those Red Stripe ads!
So do I.
Awesome and total win, ebookace! This one made me laugh out loud at my desk when I saw it in voting and was instantly faved. I’m glad it made it!
i will never understand people like this…
…and they will never understand us
These people must be trying to be the Fox Network of Christianity, because they’ll turn people off of Christianity like Fox turns people off of quality programming (yes, even “The Simpsons” jumped the shark).
I don’t think that’s very likely.
No, they’re right.
The Simpson’s jumped the shark a few seasons back.
Oh, ha. ;p
Note to self: Remember to type out what I mean, stop assuming people can read my mind. Silly me.
What I meant is I don’t think it’s likely these guys torn people off Christianity.
Ohfortheloveofsanity… turn*
Proof (as if it were needed) that a secular society is the way to go.
People like this demonstrate that every group must put up with whacko posers who, unfortunately, hog the limelight while thousands and thousands of REAL Christians quietly go about their business of trying to rear children, work their jobs, and help other people, unlike these nut jobs. And, for the record, God loves everybody. Check out John Chapter 3, for example. It’s obvious these people have never read their Bible or are grossly (and purposefully) misunderstanding it.
For discussions about “real Christians” and “God loves everybody”, I recommend the thread from Feb 28th – “I like your Christ“
Yes, please. I’d just as soon we not repeat every comment again two weeks later — that one takes AGES to load!
I heartily agree.
But you can accomplish so much housework while waiting for it to load….
Ever heard of “love the sinner, hate the sin”? These guys haven’t.
Which, aside from a metaphorical passage in Leviticus, is a good 99.99999998%.
Yeah, but where’s the fun in stuff like not judging people and loving others? It’s a whole lot more fun to throw that stuff out and just focus on a couple of verses that you think let you hate someone you hated anyway.
and Romans Ch 1… people always forget Paul…
If we could just put WBC and al Qaeda in a big locked room full of a variety of implements of different weights and sharpnesses, the rest of us would have a world that’s so much nicer to live in.
They’d just be quickly replaced with new eejits doing the same shite.
.
But … If there would be video cameras in that room, at least it could have some morbid entertainment value.
Agreed.
Real Christians love their brothers and sisters. Real Christians know that God Loves all of his children, no matter how great their sin…it pains me to see these people with so much hate in their hearts. It must be a horrible burden to carry around. They would be so much happier if they wouldn’t cloud their Hypocriticle hearts with anger.
*twitch*
…
*twitchtwitch*
also real Christians seem mighty keen to sell their poison and make pronouncements on sin, when it only applies to their despotic, zombie, god…
The people I were talking about were the ones that give bad names for the good examples. Spreading the word of what you believe happens with many beliefs, not just Christianity.
Just because you don’t agree with what they believe doesn’t make it any better or worse than your own opinion. Please, treat people with equal respect and regard. Putting forth flames will only get you them in return.
Just because you don’t agree with what they believe doesn’t make it any better or worse than your own opinion.
Yet you are willing to put down the WBC as something that’s not real Christians.
The real problem with Westboro is that they give mainline evangelicals an out. No matter what whacko anti-science BS your average pew-sitter believes in, he can always point to Westboro and say “Those are the crazy guys, over there!” when in fact it’s just a matter of degrees. All deistic religions are a part of the problem, not just the sad idiots pictured above.
/gas, check
//matches, check
///let’s get this party started!
////Yes, I’m aware this is not Fark. Slashies regardless!
Things just get especially wacky when people (anyone, atheist, theist, whathaveyou) don’t have the brains to teach their kids tolerance of other beliefs. When that happens, you get these Westboro people as well as typical, every-day Christians/atheists that will not STAND to listen to someone give a disagreeing opinion. They throw temper-tantrums like little two-years olds and go into a huff because that person is either going to hell or is a blithering idiot with issues gripping reality. That’s the sad truth of it, when it comes down to it.
-
tl;dr Teach your kids to paint with a thinner brush.
Tolerance (or should I say indulgence) of religious beliefs is the root of the problem, especially when said religions start legislating their prohibitions. How many innocent potheads are rotting in prison because of religion’s animus towards an herb? How many people will die / have died that might otherwise have lived, had there not been this idiotic ban on stem cell research? Tolerance of this foolishness is no virtue.
Tolerance of religious beliefs is the root of the problem
I know what you meant but you know that that sounds sooo bad?
Yeah, I know. The truth can be harsh. I’m not suggesting we round up the religionists into camps, or make them wear an identifying mark (paging DWN!), but I do think we should have a ban on any legislation that derives from religious beliefs. That stuff is fine for theocracies like Iran, but western-style democracies are supposed to be blind to religion, such that any one citizen won’t be penalized for not sharing the beliefs of any other citizen.
But by saying tolerance of this foolishness is no virtue you’re actually supporting the very idea of singling out the religious for persecution.
Not so much for persecution as for non-indulgence. You’re free to believe whatever you want, but you’re not free to bind me with your beliefs.
Let me try to explain…
The Religionist has every right to have as many and as powerful imaginary friends as they want or need. They even have the right to tell me all about it, including the going to hell business…
In turn, I have every right to mock, revile, and otherwise be as forthright in my execration of such opinions as I choose to be…
They keep it all inside, I’ll do the same… that’s tolerance.
Sgt Wang, reporting for duty. Sorry for the delay, I was doing sit ups and pull ups and some push ups, if you catch my meaning…
My religious beliefs tell me theft is wrong. Ban that law.
My enlightened self-interest tells me that if I want to keep my stuff, I should support laws against theft. I agree to be bound by that law in return for everyone else being similarly bound. It’s not about moralistic right and wrong, it’s about keeping my stuff!
Same with murder. I can think of a few knuckleheads I wouldn’t mind seeing in the obituaries, but since I don’t want to be killed myself, I support murder’s illegality.
So what you really meant was that morality shouldn’t be involved with law?
The laws of a society should be based on what is good for the society. Exactly where you draw the lines of what is “morals” seems to differ with different definitions. (I think questions like these are very interesting, which is why I am butting in.)
Basically. There are things which can be proved “good” (or helpful) or “bad” (harmful) via logic and reason, and these are the things which make good bases for legislation. Logic and reason apply equally to everyone, whereas individual moralities are just that, individual.
That was what I was trying to get at with my “depending on the definition of morals”. Morals – in general – are formed by the society, and quite a few of them, in many places and over the times, have been “logical” only by “because you just don’t do that” or “because god says so”, which is not logical.
(Wikipedia’s page on morality shows why one has to define both “morals” and “logic” before a discussion on what should affect what and how and how it relates to juridics.)
i’m butting in cause philosophy of ethics is a joy of mine. The religious moral issues have some semi logic to them, just very outdated. Most of them come down to disease prevention and hygiene.
We don’t eat one another because it spreads disease very quickly and gives you nasty brain damage. pork was once hard to prepare without getting parasites. . it wasn’t okay to mix cloths because it could easily cause a rash.
Even if homosexual acts were once considered wrong, it’s probably due to disease. if sex weren’t required for children it probably would have been banned as well.
the thing is we have come a long way and those things don’t hurt us so much anymore. If we want a law we need to be aware of why it is there and be prepared to change it as times change.
Actually many of the levitical proscriptions had little to do with either disease prevention or hygiene and came down to Israel’s covenant with God as the “chosen people.” Much of the behavior was simply a way of marking the Israelite as different from the nations around them. In other words, because God told us so, that’s why. Some of it by chance happened to be healthier, but that wasn’t the original purpose, just a nice side effect.
I disagree, but I am willing to leave it there.
See! Tolerance!
Ya, I am but one of the intolerant jerks challenging your beliefs in a futile effort of having you either strengthen your beliefs or refine them.
I just meant that n8 and I had reached the point where an argument was going to be long and stupid… Agreeing to disagree. I didn’t mean challenge & debate were wrong. (Just thought I’d clarify.)
A significant majority’s morals dictate that two men in love is wrong.
Logic dictates that the love of two unbiologically related and consenting adults is not wrong and that loving, long term relationships tend to better both individuals involved.
So no, morals and logics do not go hand in hand. Morals is what you think is right. Logic is the progression of truth.
Well stated!
Even with caffeine issues, I know that two consenting adults shouldn’t be denied the same legal recognition of their union that hetersexual couples are allowed.
Denying gay marriage is legislating morality. Allowing gay marriage simply balances the legal rights of all consenting couples.
But what’s stopping you having logically dictated morals? It’s just metter of what you call morality at the end of the day. If you want to argue that only moral imperatives derived from an absolute good are morality, then of course all morality is bunk. Why not have your cake and eat it, and just call whatever you decide ‘good’ is moral, and have logical morality that way?
Yes, popular morality is riddled with holes and all kinds of stupid. That’s got a lot more to do with people than anything else.
Which would be great, however the source of morality is not always logic as people as a group have a bad tendency to follow a tribal mentality in which a provided answer will suffice instead of individually coming to a conclusion. This has a function since leadership is a good thing and that is how we work. It worked for many years. However, we also need to remember to have internal conflict to make sure that we are following laws because they make sense, not because we are told they make sense.
So that is why logic and morality will probably never be interchangeable. Even though I am saying these words, I still have biases that aren’t logical. The best I can do is not advocate them as laws.
Even though I am saying these words, I still have biases that aren’t logical. The best I can do is not advocate them as laws.
Word. And, perhaps ironically, the one bias I AM willing to advocate as a law, is the bias against people advocating their biases as laws…
(Is that irony, or just circular and exhausting?)
Thanks to all of y’all for these thought-provoking, intelligent, and respectful discussions. I was running out of things to think about when the insomnia hits tonight, but now I have a whole list!
Kinky, thinking about us in bed… I’m honored.
Morality is externally imposed; it flows from authority, not logic.
Ethics are self-imposed, derived from first principles; they flow from logic and analysis.
Secular law should always be ethical. Where it is moral without being ethical, it is probably wrong.
Those might be your definitions of those terms, but I think it’s a stretch to present them as THE definitions.
Having said that, yes, I agree ethics/morality should always be a personal matter.
I am proposing them as the definitions. In my experience, when you scratch the surface of any moralist, you find an authoritarian under the paint. We even talk constantly about “moral authority.” The idea of a universally applicable “morality” coming from first principles (and where to first principles come from anyway?) is pretty new historically speaking; for most of history it’s come down to $DEITY’s will/law as the prime source of morals.
Ethics are more personal in nature, less about applying absolutes from On High and more about asking yourself probing questions concerning your own notions of fairness and how people treat each other to obtain the most favorable outcomes for themselves and society.
“ethics are about”
“morality is”
“ethics are”
Maybe I’m missing something here… wouldn’t an ‘I think’ or ‘I’d say’ have been apropriate if you were simply suggesting definitions rahter than presenting them? Personal style notwithstanding, I think it’s fair to say that;s at least what you implied you were doing.
I’d argue that first principles are assumed. Logically, if you assume nothing you get nothing. You have to start with an asumption, se what structure that builds, and then evaluate that structure through trial and error.
A moralist isn’t an authoritarian in disguise; there are just a lot of authoritarians disguised a moralists. I can see how rational concern would make you wary, but just writing off morals is not the way forward. Hell, the idea of a personal system of ethics is based on defining your own morality.Far better to look carefully at these systems, so you can recognise the signs of unhealthy authoritarianism, and then know next time what to look for.
And as far as going back a ways, Virtue Ethics has been alive and well since ancient greece. It’s fundamentally about defining a virtue and then embodying it, which is the historial foundation of modern self-defined ethics.
that one just happens to follow secular belief as well. For the most part secular and religious moral beliefs can follow, it’s the purely religious law that needs to stay out of legislation. Otherwise why couldn’t Hindus make eating beef illegal?
Hm… They’d have the benefit of some rational reasons for that legislation than the anti-gay-marriage ones, at least.
I mean “… legislation, unlike the … “
No they’re not. It was FOUNDED by Christians.
I really wish I wasn’t rising to troll bait, but I must speak (type?). If you wish to be tolerated, you must first learn to tolerate. If you wish to be respected, you must first learn to respect. You can’t say any one group of people is or isn’t the problem. I actually know several atheists that are against stem cell research. But that’s not my point. You can’t blame religion for ALL of the world’s ills.
You sit there and spout that tolerance (or indulgence as you called it) is in fact the problem, when two comments down from here, you’re about to get into a flame war because someone isn’t tolerating you. Pheemz was making a good point. There’s a place in this world for the religious and the atheists alike. The problem is zealots on both sides of the fence who refuse to respectfully disagree, and in THAT regard, YOU are part of the problem.
Specifically, I spout that tolerance of religious beliefs is the problem. I’m not asking anyone to tolerate my personal religious beliefs; what I’m doing is putting forth arguments which people can accept or reject as they wish, but I’m not saying “Do this but not that, because God said so!”
What troll bait? All I see is whining to be allowed to state you have an imaginary friend called Seymour unchallenged…
As AC said, I know what you mean (and agree with it) but it IS hard to articulate without sounding really wrong.
The problem with “we must be tolerant of the beliefs of others” is that, if “others” happen to believe that their deity requires a human sacrifice at every equinox, we have to say, “Well, okay, that’s your religious belief, I can’t fault you for it or prevent you acting on it.”
An example of this actually happening:
“In 1985, Kong Moua, a Hmong man, kidnapped and raped a woman from a Californian college. He later claimed that this was an act of zij poj niam and was allowed to plead to false imprisonment only, instead of kidnapping and rape. The judge in this case considered cultural testimony as an explanation of the man’s crime.”
(Quoted from Wiki, under “bride kidnapping.”)
Someone further down offers theft as an example/challenge, and says something like “my religious beliefs prevent stealing, so you want to make theft legal?” But the fallacy there is that theft is not EXCLUSIVELY a religious issue. In virtually every culture, including those who have had minimal if any exposure to JudeoChristian values, “taking what’s not yours” is taboo. The REASON it’s taboo is not because a god said so, but because it causes a disruption in the society.
This even applies to cultures in which the concept of personal property does not apply, but everything is shared by the community or a desired item can simply be requested (google “pubusi”). Even in these societies, there is a line which cannot be crossed without consequences – and it has nothing to do with what God/gods they worship.
I consider myself very liberal in terms of individual rights issues, but this is a stumbling block for me, too. I do support religious freedom – but does that mean I must also support the former Mormon practice of older men marrying multiple barely-adolescent brides against their wills? Must I also endorse the practice of kidnapping and rape as soon as way to get a bride? – which, I hasten to point out, also occurred AT GOD’S COMMAND in the Old Testament. (Book of Judges)
As a woman who believes in tolerance and personal freedom, where should I draw the line between religious freedom and women’s rights – when a young woman is stoned to death for being raped, or an old woman is sentenced to flogging and exile because a young man brought her some bread? Or should it be sooner, when she’s not allowed to sit next to a boy in kindergarten, or has to attend an entirely separate school… or should it be even sooner than that, maybe, when a new mother has to wait one week before she’s “pure” after giving birth to a boy, but *two* weeks after having a girl, because the ritual impurity is greater for girls?
*sigh* I know, tl;dr.
But I wish there were more people thinking about the hard stuff…
“An example of this actually happening”
should read
“An example of what I mean”
because obviously kidnapping a bride isn’t human sacrifice. Got a bit distracted there.
I enjoyed your post. Another example of religion gone amuck would be honor killings, a delightful import from the lands of Islam (although there is some question of whether the killings are mandated by Islam or whether it’s a tribal thing. Still, we’re told that we must be respectful and tolerant of culture as well, so it’s germane to the discussion.)
It’s like being told that, while we have a math answer from a guy with a doctorate in mathematics, we should also listen to the middle-school dropout’s answer. It’s crap.
although there is some question of whether the killings are mandated by Islam or whether it’s a tribal thing
Consensus here (in the Swedish discussion of the issue) seems to be that it’s a cultural thing – not all “honour societies” are Islamic, not all Islamic cultures have the “honour system”.
*whew*, glad someone read it! (c:
I also thought about the kidnapping/rape thing being a cultural, not religious, issue after I posted, but as you said, it’s still germane. (And I gave the wrong reference for the Biblical instruction of kidnapping/rape=marriage; it’s Deuteronomy actually. The incident in Judges was not specifically at God’s command.)
I’ve heard the expression, “Your right to swing your fist around in the air ends at the tip of my nose.” I try to hold to that standard in my personal approach – everyone should be free to believe and practice as they please, right up until the point where it puts someone *else’s* well-being (physical, mental, whatever) in jeopardy.
It’s sad and scary to me to see how many people are willing to insist that everyone live according to their personal interpretation of this or that holy book.
And, although this is really off-topic, I suppose: Why is gay marriage not part of “life, liberty, and the *pursuit of happiness*”? I mean, if you’re Jeffrey Dahmer and you think that cutting up a neighbor and having them for dinner is going to make you happy, then no, you’re not allowed, because of the whoel “your fist/my nose” thing. But if I think that scrapbooking or bowling or bungee-jumping would make me happy, I’m allowed to do that even if others disapprove – why should I be restricted by law if I think that marrying a woman would make me happy?
(Insert cynical “marriage =/= happiness” remark here.)
Ah the joy of cynics. I actually die a little inside when I hear the cynical marriage isn’t worth it argument as a response to gay marriage. Least the cynical twits actually got to be legally married to complain about it…
Some of us crazy people actually like and love our lovers and have for years now…
And some of us might pretend to be cynics to cover up the pain of betrayal and the abuse of our bodies and our trust, and/or to avoid the ridicule and mockery when the TRUE cynics find out that we still hope for a happy-ending story… hm?
In any event, it’s true, although lacking one qualifying word: Marriage does not *necessarily* equal happiness. Making that statement is not the same as saying “Marriage can never provide satisfaction” or “the opposite of marriage is happiness.”
If more teenagers and young adults understood that a ring and a piece of paper is not a *guarantee* of a blissful life forevermore, I suspect we’d actually be better off. But marriage in our culture is marketed as some sort of Nirvana, or the culmination of one’s attempts to find happiness after which one can “take it easy,” instead of being one (largeish) step along the lifelong road.
The tired waitress on CSI put it best in season six.
“Marriages are a Rorschach, you see what you want to see. My first six were great.”
People have become too complacent in the idea that A. Do something B. … C. Profit. They don’t quite realize that effort and forethought are huge into making things work. Lynn and I get along because we actually love each other and put the effort into getting along as a couple.
I found that a number of hardcore cynics are jaded because of a supernasty marriage. However, I found the supernasty part to be indicative to being in a contract with a psychopath more than the contract part…
So you’re right, it isn’t a magic pill. It is a job, you work at it and get only what both parties put in.
Oh. I wish I’d read this post before I posted the long comment on your previous post – my billions of words there just seemed kinda useless – you’re already essentially saying what I tried to say. ;p
I think you know when you have to step in, which is why you keep on scaling down. When someone does something you know is wrong, it’s time to object. That point is somewhere different for everyone.
Right and wrong trump culture and heritage every time. Otherwise I’d be bashing cute girls over the head and dragging them back to my cave all day long.
Thinking about the hard stuff makes doing it much less hard. And being moral is enough of a challenge as it is.
When someone does something you know is wrong, it’s time to object. …
Right and wrong trump culture and heritage every time.
On a personal, speak-out, activist-type level, I agree. But on a legislating level, this is exactly what scares me, this terminology of “right and wrong.” Because what it usually boils down to is “do I like it: yes–it’s moral and Right;’ no–it’s immoral and Wrong.”
If my father were in a position to make laws, it’d be illegal for women to have tattoos or body piercings. In his mind, it’s not a question of “I don’t like it,” it’s a question of tattoos – only on women – being “disgusting” and “indecent.” I’ve pointed out to him that it’s really just his preference, but he maintains that no, it’s not about “preference,” it’s about what’s right, and it is Just Not Right for women to go around with tattoos and holes poked in them. The end.
(Had he voiced this maybe 20 years ago, I’d probably have rushed right out and tattooed my entire face. Ah well.)
His is a rather extreme example, but there are so many people who “just know” that something is morally wrong, and demand that others abide by their determination of Right vs. Wrong.
I’m too distracted to remember/figure out what my point here was, shall stop typing now. Ta!
This. Behaviors to be debated for legislation should not be framed in terms of “right” and “wrong”, but “harmless” and “harmful.” I suspect there would be many less laws than currently exist, if this philosophy were to take root.
That idea has my full support.
the paper mill lobbyists would not allow this simply based on the fact that less laws mean less paper in books… not good for business…
We still put that crap in bound volumes somewhere? I haven’t looked up law anywhere other than online (Lexis & Westlaw) since my first year of law school.
Probably the Library of Congress has them all…
So why not decie that you’re a utilitarian, and define ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ as ‘harmless’ and ‘harmful’? The issue clearly isn’t with any particular word. Better to see what it actually is than refuse ideas because of negative baggage.
The problem with morality is that people feel they have a right not to be questioned on it. When it comes to applying it to others, they absolutely don’t – I have a right to question them, and if it’s about me, my right trumps theirs.
The trouble is that people are afraid to question moraity, and allow it to be imposed on them. Hey, kind of like we were talking about culture and heritage a minute ago.
Whenever people feel they can’t question something they think is wrong, bad stuff tends to happen. The trouble is in application and understanding, not the theory.
Well. The issue really is rather a lot to do with particular words – just look at how many times misunderstandings have occurred in this thread alone because this is a touchy and much debated subject where the terms all have evolved into ambiguous blobs over the years.
.
The problem with morality is that people feel they have a right not to be questioned on it.
Which is partially to do with many people thinking morality is a religious thing, and there is a no-no on questioning religious beliefs.
.
The trouble is that people are afraid to question moraity, and allow it to be imposed on them.
True. The downside of being a herd animal. (Or flock animal.) We have a need to be accepted in society, and most of the time it means the individuals adapt. And as long as the “We know what Right and Wrong is”-morality is not questioned as a foundation of society’s functionality, questioning any of it means you set yourself out as immoral since you don’t – apparently- know what is Right and what is Wrong. Aah, but the self-imposed shackles of morality and religion are beautiful in a macabre way.
.
Whenever people feel they can’t question something they think is wrong, bad stuff tends to happen. The trouble is in application and understanding, not the theory.
In general I think we would be far better off in the world if everyone had to study discussion, debating and reasoning from childhood. People seem to be – too foten – incapable of separating morals, opinions and person. That is, I think, one of the more important reasons why it is so hard to question, or even talk about, morals. Especially if the discussion includes religion, then it’s even more hard to keep things separate. And if we can’t even manage to do that, I think “application and understanding” will contine to be a very, very slow-moving creature. (Which might sometimes be good, I suppose.)
I guess I agree with you.
I just also believe in trying to change those facts… it’s a lot like trying to batter down a wall with your head. But it’s worth it.
I just also believe in trying to change those facts… it’s a lot like trying to batter down a wall with your head.
Oh yes, me too, which is why it’s interesting to try to figure out exactly what it is that is going on.
Oh, and if you bang your head juuuust right, it gives a nice buzz too … *bangs on*
You draw the line where the rights/freedoms of one person allows them to impose upon the rights/freedoms of another. Rape denies another person the freedom from rape. Bringing an old woman bread hurts no one. Legally marrying multiple people is illegal for tax reasons (so I understand), but there’s nobody stopping you from living with a bunch of women, marrying them ceremonially, and screwing all of them… (other than social norms and local laws made to uphold those social norms which would undoubtedly fall apart in a higher level court…)
Thankyou for putting that so well, I agree entirely. I just think that people should be free to decide where the line is for them, and if they disagree that’s their choice.
To avoid quoting just about everything I wrote, I’ll take the librty to decide that this segment was, to me, the essence of it.
It doesn’thave to be a stumbling block, it is “only” a matter of prioritising various actions and their consequences. As we currently (supposing we are living in western, democratic countries with an almost religious belief in FREEDOM (and often little discussion about what the concept really means)) live in a society where freedoms are at the core, we need to sort the freedoms according to rank, and I think we generally do.
.
(I will simply use the word freedom for freedom/right in the following:)
The freedom to live (not be killed (or hurt)) is probably at the top (with a few exceptions, like where there’s capital punishment, or in case there’s a war (which is one of many reasons I consider both those concepts immoral measured by my moral standards)).
.
All other freedoms rank under this. I believe (when you start to really poke into things. Some people will say “I’d rather die or be tortured than not be allowed to say what I want” or “better to die free than live a slave”, but … Meh. Those are mostly clichees. A lot of people probably think they really mean it, but I think in general most people would say that life is a bit more important than any other freedoms.) So any other freedoms should not infringe on the freedom to live.
.
Freedom of religion is a related to freedom of thought and freedom of expression – but one person’s freedom of religion should never harm another person’s more important freedoms. (Life, health, actual freedom as in non-slavery, etc.)
.
Somebody’s ideas about a god just should not ever be allowed to force someone else to change their life, to decrease their own freedoms.
.
You should never have to wonder if one person’s fix ideas shall be respected to the point where another person’s life is disrespected.
*nods*
My point, expanded.
I liked yours better!
Since this is an issue I really care about, I lose brevity and structure. Getting to the point is not my forte. :p
I’ve been avoiding this thread because I have *got* to get some work don, but I’m glad I came back and read this one (all of them, really, but this one especially). In part, because – periods as paragraph breaks! Why didn’t I think of that?
.
“Somebody’s ideas about a god just should not ever be allowed to force someone else to change their life, to decrease their own freedoms.”
.
This is AMAZINGLY well put, and cuts right to the heart of the matter, and I thank you for expressing it that way. A freedom/right that takes away someone else’s freedom/right is inherently defective.
.
And just to clarify, in case it was unclear to anyone, I’m not *actually* in any doubt about whether the things I mentioned (child brides, honor killings, etc) are right or wrong. But it is a question that comes up, both in my own mind when I sit down and challenge myself on my thoughts and beliefs (as I try to do on a regular basis to make sure that they stand up to scrutiny, and to adjust them if they don’t), and as attacks from others (::coughDadcough::) whose blood boils at the mere thought of being in the presence of someone who is – gasp – socially liberal.
.
I had a huge internal “crisis” a few years ago when my city proposed a smoking ban – no smoking in public buildings, period. Bars, restaurants, none of it. On the one hand, my liberal self said, “That’s unnecessary government involvement in an individual’s personal choice – I object! My personal self, however, said, “Oh thank GOD*, I hope it passes, I’m so tired of getting a four-hour vomiting headache from being seated too close to the smoking section!”
.
I strongly believe the government should stay out of people’s personal lives, BUT I am also dreadfully sensitive to tobacco smoke and feel that I shouldn’t have to deal with someone else’s habit *physically* affecting me. It was really difficult for me to come to a decision on that – and in fact, I ultimately did not vote on the measure because I couldn’t do it without feeling like either a hypocrite or a martyr. (It passed by a huge margin, and I rejoiced, quietly.)
.
Anyway, the point of all that is, there is a certain perception that people with socially liberal beliefs either (a) have not given any thought to their positions, or (b) are raging hypocrites who hold “the rights of the individual” in higher esteem than “peaceful, civilized society.” When people like me raise questions like that – “must I also support…” – it’s not usually anyone looking for a “why yes, yes you must” or “nah, don’t worry about that” answer… it’s a springboard for examining and challenging the concept, poking it to see where it works and where it’s weak, and to make sure it still addresses the needs of the society in which it exists.
.
Which I’m pretty sure you know, but just in case anyone else passes by and manages to slog through all of this… (c:
or to stop eating the paint. it really screws up the mental processes
Mmm… The problem is probably also in defining what it is to “tolerate beliefs” or tolerance in general. There’s quite a wide variety in interpretations of what that should entail.
You gotta love the irony of atheist zealots. They make me laugh.
Do please explain the irony, I’m interested to hear it.
Well, I was unaware that beliefs of one person actually impact you just by being there. The problem is when people think their beliefs need to be law. If there are people with beliefs who aren’t affecting you, why are you advocating having them “purged” so to speak?
There is a whole group of people who want nothing to do with bothering you but you are zealously against them. How is that not irony?
They don’t impact me just by existing. Where they impact me is when they influence legislation. I thought I had made that clear. What I seek is for them to keep their religious beliefs to themselves, and not to try and force those who don’t believe to abide by their tenets.
Also, I’m being a zealot, but my zealotry isn’t specifically pro-atheist. It’s anti-religion, but gods can exist without religion and vice-versa, so I don’t believe I’m guilty of athiest zealotry.
Ah, then a miscommunication. I think it was the indulgence wording. Legislation isn’t so much indulging them as it is mandating their morals as law. Subtle word difference. Then again, I am not fully caffinated so I will withdraw my previous statement as my own ignorance instead of poking you further with a pointy stick.
Whew! Good thing, too, I was getting light-headed from the blood loss. Can a brother get a transfusion around here?
Sure, I’ll call the nurse. *calls nurse*
Fun fact, Jehovah’s Witnesses are expected to deny lifesaving blood transfusions since Blood is sacred and belongs to God. I can’t remember the specifics but I can remember my mother being scared when she thought she might need a transfusion for a surgery back when she was a practicing JW.
I C WHUT U DID THAR!
I love it!
In b4 “comprehension FAIL”.
Okay, this tickled the heck out of me. Many cleverness points.
WBC sent three people to protest the memorial services of some of the people killed in the crash of Flight 3407 in Clarence Center, NY. However, there were counter protesters there, covering up their message of hate with white sheets. Check out the story at the URL above, and know that there are people out there willing to stop such hatred from affecting us all.
God hates cigarettes. Smoke inside so he doesn’t have to deal with second-hand smoke. Sheesh, people are so inconsiderate of their deities.
God hates when His creations inhale toxic fumes for fun. Because duh.
Ha I love it!
I wanna know what the sign with the burning skull says ><
Miniaturized-brain people are holding me hostage! Help!!
It is the Radiskül, it kills you one by one.
It is the Radiskül, it kills you just for fun.
Oh wow. I’d forgotten about Radiskull, thanks for bringing back those memories
Great caption. I love it.
Not really related to the image/caption, but something to keep in mind if the Phelps/WBC group ever comes to your town: Hold a pledge drive.
Get as many people as are willing to cooperate, to agree that for each minute the WBC protests whatever it is they’re protesting, everyone will donate $x… to PFLAG, the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, NGLTF, GLAAD, the Matthew Shepard Foundation, whatever. (And it doesn’t have to be just gay-rights groups – the ACLU and Amnesty International are two others that spring to mind as appropriate.)
Make sure to notify WBC beforehand (email, letter, whatever – although I’d recommend you use a throw-away email address or put no return-address on a letter) that for every minute they are in public view, $x from x# of people will be going to XYZ organization to help support, encourage, and finance XYZ’s message and mission.
After the event, follow up – let them know that as a direct result of their protest at the funeral of John Doe, $xxx was sent to XYZ. Provide a receipt from the organization if possible, to prove it. Thank them for their support of XYZ and its message and goals.
Be polite. Don’t argue, or provide scripture, or express shock or horror – none of that will work, now or ever. Just let them know calmly and politely that you [will be using/have used] their protest into a way of raising money for the organizations that promote tolerance and acceptance.
That’s delightfully perfect. Thanks for your idea.
You’re welcome – feel free to spread it around! I would love it if WBC pledge drives were to become commonplace enough for Phelps and his crew to finally realize that they’re funding their own “sheketz” (object of loathing). I don’t know if any of them are capable of riding the logic train that far, but I think it’s worth a try to see if it’d eventually get them to STFU.
At the very least, it would annoy them to no end without being illegal.
I don’t know… as long as their object of loathing exists, they have a raison d’etre. They would welcome the addition of something new to rail against, I’m sure. The best solution is to ignore them entirely. Or shoot them. I’d be good with either.
I’m frankly surprised someone hasn’t eliminated them already. (would anyone get it if I said “inhumed them”?) I generally don’t approve of violence, but there’s an exception to every rule… and I think I’d sleep pretty well that night, too.
Anyway, it’s not really something new – the first anti-WBC pledge drive took place several years ago, in the early 2000s I think. I linked to an article about one in 2006 in my name. A group in 2003 raised $10,000 for a Nashville HIV/AIDS organization. It’s just not been well-publicized.
And they have been known to cancel scheduled protests where “Phelps-a-thons” were planned, although there’s no way to say for sure if it’s because of the pledge drives. (They’ve canceled other protests too, and they’ve shown up at pledged protests, so it could well be unrelated.)
To spin off a little on your comment above about “harmless vs. harmful,” I’d add the category of “beneficial.” (“Harmless” would then become synonymous with “neutral.”)
Counter-protesting them or trying to shout them down is harmful, to the entity being protested (it adds to the spectacle and disruption) and potentially to the counter-protester (they’re notorious for suing people if given half a chance). Furthermore, the more you engage with them, the more opportunity you’re giving them to spout their hatred, which is harmful to both the people they’re TRYING to harm in the first place, and potentially to impressionable people or mentally unstable people, who might take what they say to heart and/or develop an unhealthy fixation on it.
Ignoring them entirely is harmless/neutral. It does no harm whatsoever, but it doesn’t really do any good either. There is the *hope* that they would eventually go away, but that would require 100% compliance and consistency from the entire rest of the nation/world, AND an assumption that their religious mania would not be enough to drive them on. Not likely, IMO; but it’s still harmless.
Using their protests to raise money for organizations that serve those against whom they protest is both harmless AND beneficial.
Harmless: It doesn’t add fuel to their fire in the way that trying to shout them down does, and it doesn’t put the pledger in any risk – ideally only one person would even show up, solely to time the protest so total pledges can be calculated.
Beneficial: The organizations in question receive financial support, which especially in this economy is good news for them *and* which might translate into a beneficial outcome for years to come (see below). People who hear about the pledge idea for the first time might be inspired to come up with other, equally non-violent and “outside the box” responses to hatred, so it might replace disgusted inactivity with enthusiastic proactivity, in this setting and others. Pledgers receive the emotional/psychological benefits associated with giving/helping others.
Ignoring them is a good *second* option, but IMO the best option of all is to turn what they intend for hurt and hate, into something good and helpful.
About the future benefits:
The financial support they receive today *might* continue to benefit them years down the road, decades down the road. A nonprofit with a shaky financial base is liable to dissolve, no matter how good its intentions were or how many awesome plans it had. A group with a solid financial base can enact those plans, can expand and grow instead of struggling to stay afloat – so the benefit is not necessarily only a short-term one.
The Phelpses and their hatred might (oh please oh please oh please) all die out in a generation or two – this would be a neutral outcome or, at best, an absence of negativity. If you follow me.
By contrast, the struggling support agency that gets a boost to its balance sheet today might be able to build on that “boost” and to become bigger and stronger and, in a few generations, might be able to offer assistance and support to 10x or 100x as many people as it helps today.
There’s no guarantee that any of that would come to pass, of course… the charity that you donate $500 to today could still go belly-up next week. However, it is at least a *potential* result that a donation today might lead to an organization continuing to help people for years to come, so in addition to being a definite short-term +, it’s a possible long-term + as well.
I do like a little hope in my moral diet so I still like the idea.
Yes.
Love it.
TPR FTW! And maybe the pledge drive could be used toward the fee?
Wow, that is so Ghandi -esque! I guess, anyway, not knowing that much about Ghandi but it sounds very clever and makes me laugh! Civil disobedience FTW!
So why can’t we just “tolerate” and “accept” Christians?
EPIC WIN – although I admit, it took me a second to get…and then I ws rolling!!! These idiots are coming to protest near me tomorrow and I have the day off. I might just have to go rile some idiots up…hmmm…any suggestions on the best way to really piss them off??
Find out their list of whatever they consider to be “gay” behaviour (maybe wear some magenta shorts?) if such a thing exists, and then walk in front of them as they protest. Alternately, you can create a sign that says “god hates assholes” and protest their protesting. Just some thoughts.
Breesus, see “e’s” suggestion above. You may not have much time, but a few well placed messages could get things started. Have fun and please let us know what happens!!!!
In addition to my comment above about pledge drives, I’d advise that you resist the temptation… in addition to only fueling their fire, they are notorious for jumping on ANYthing they can to sue people for “violating their rights.” Many of their members are lawyers for precisely this purpose (or used to be, at least – I haven’t read up on them in a while).
They will seize the slightest little thing that they can think of to use as an excuse to take you to court, and no matter how ridiculous it may be, it can still wind up costing you time and money.
They thrive on conflict and outrage, so when you try to piss them off, you’re actually just making them happy and giving them more material to work with. Directly engaging them in any way is at best a waste of your time, and at worst a recipe for disaster.
By the way, pissing them off as an individual is utterly impossible, from what I’ve heard. (To make someone angry, one must first share a common reality with that person…) Now, if you’re a government and you, say, tell them they’re not allowed in your country (go UK!), that’ll work, but otherwise you’re only going to be adding to the spectacle.
In addition to the pledge drive I mention above, another suggestion for peaceful counter protests is to gather enough people to stand in a circle or semi-circle around them, completely shutting them off from the view of the people at whatever event they are picketing. Just be super careful not to physically touch any of them, because they will scream “assault and battery” at the drop of a hat. (Also: cooties.)
damn, I should have proofread this before posting. Sorry, it’s a disjointed and repetitious mess.
Nice. This is one of the better ones.
Momentary “i don’t get it…” leads to epic LOL.
WIN
no no… he didn’t inhale..
Just throwing this out there, God doesn’t hate homosexuals. These people are stupid. God loves everyone and all sin is the same in Gods eyes. So basicly if you can lie and go to heaven you can be gay and go to heaven. I dont want people to thing wrong of christians because of a few ??? I wanna call them Jackasses. I am a christian and I know what I say is in the bible.
If god hates ***s, then why are those guys standing there not electrocuted?
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!! i do hope someone has actually said this to them. hilarious. win.
“Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”
Any of those words ring a bell? Americans are entitled to pursue what makes them happy. So, if a gay man is happy being a gay man, then who is anyone to stop him?
The Westboro Baptist Church is nothing more than a group of pathetic extremists who will burn in the fires of the deepest circle of Hell for their bigotry.
… Wait, WHAT??? Where can I find pictures of this?
Worst captioning ever!
As far as you can tell, but if you read the other comments, you’ll know.
The “bundle of sticks” definition was mentioned at least twice on 12 March.
You may want to keep your next optometrist appointment.
Hahaha… If God is omnisexual, does this make Satan single? Or, nonsexual?
I think if God is omnisexual, then that would make Satan….fair game, like everything and everyone else.
God doesn’t have a sexual preference; He’s God. The laws of gender do not apply to Him.
Clearly you’ve learned nothing: gender has nothing to do with sexuality.
Yes, I am a Christain.
Yes, these people are idiots.
No, these people do not represent the whole of Christianity.
No, I am not one of these people, and neither are most *true* Christains.
Yes, I am going to get my ass chewed off over this post.
No, I did not read the other comments before I posted this.
why do people that believe in god have to be so angry at non-believers…
damn protesters.
i really hate the violent ones..
Which god do they believe in?
These people are so full of self righteous shit it’s unbelievable.
if god hates homosexuals he can come down and stop them himself. If he’s all-powerful and people fear him, he doesn’t need a bunch of pretentious moronic assholes to do it for him.
(any of you see him yet?)
Only in my head, striking the WBC repeatedly with lightning.
*wants to have a front row seat to the show inside of Tyler’s head*
You know, rethinking this comment, it sounds creepy and maybe a little dirty :\
He did. Sodom and Gomorrah. Look it up.
I think that happened to the building they were holding a gay rights conference in.
Actually, He doesn’t want to destroy homosexuals, He just wants them to stop being homosexuals.
All i know, is that im going to picket Phelps’ funeral when he dies. “GOD WILL DAMN HIS SOUL FOR BLASPHEMY”
Harassment by religious extremist
Jehovah’s Witnesses instigated court decisions in 1942 which involved cursing a police officer calling him a fascist and to get in your face at the door steps,….this same JW 1942 court decision upheld infamous Phelps hate church in 2011
—-
Danny Haszard