I believe that the men and women in uniform fighting for us in Iraq are honorable and are serving a cause that they believe is in the best interest of our country. And though many may disagree with the way in which the war was initiated and is being administered, most agree that those who are serving are worthy of respect.
Fred Phelps of “God Hates Fags” fame and his family/church have now taken to picketing military funerals. His distorted logic is that because the country “tolerates” homosexuality, that God now hates America and that every military death is an example of God’s gleeful punishment.
Phelps’ pickets are illogical, tasteless, and cruel to grieving families. But the US House of Representatives has responded in a manner that gives me concern. By a vote of 408 to 3 the House passed House Resolution 5037:
“The Respect for America’s Fallen Heroes Act would prohibit demonstrations within 500 feet of a national cemetery and Arlington National Cemetery — 60 minutes before and after a funeral”
While I can sympathize with those going through a traumatic and difficult time and despise the hateful antics of Phelps’ harassment squad, there are still three problems I find with this approach.
First, I don’t believe that all decisions made by a government, especially those decisions around war and military action, should be protected from scrutiny and criticism. While a funeral may hardly seem the appropriate time and place for criticism of governmental policy, I am generally bothered when the government begins to make exceptions to free speech that are designed to limit those who disagree with them.
Second, when these protests began they were not targeted at military funerals but instead at funerals of gay people. And there was no effort made on the part of these legislators to protect the loved ones of gay people. In fact, this bill still will not protect gay funerals from Fred Phelps and his merry band of fag haters.
The message is clear. If you enlist knowing that you may be killed in action, your family should be protected from protest. But if you are a gay young man beaten to a blood pulp and left to die tied to a fence in the snow, “burn in hell” signs at your funeral are just fine.
It may be that gay funerals may benefit from this bill and similar state bills. Yet it remains an sad fact that our elected officials considered anti-gay speech at funerals to be legitimate protest and anti-military speech to require action.
Finally, the motivation for this legislation appears to be at least partly out of embarrassment over association with Phelps’ hate band. While he was protesting gays, he didn’t get much attention. When he protested soldiers, people noticed.
Often reaction included indignant comments like “this is a military funeral and has nothing to do with homosexuality. This soldier wasn’t gay!!” The anger was intensified that someone might think that their loved one was gay or that they supported gay rights. Anti-gay people were put into the awkward position of being protested for views which they shared with the protestors.
Prior to military pickets, efforts to disassociate religion from the Phelps Family were diverse and at time comical. Some churches counter protested with messages of love and acceptance. Some proclaimed that while they disagreed theologically with homosexual behavior, that hatred was far worse. Often in small towns the mainline churchfolk would counter-protest when the Phelps clan came to town.
More conservative churches ignored them and while disagreeing with their methods, did not disagree with their message. While they may have preferred “militant homosexual activist hate Christ” to “God hates Fags”, they did not feel much need to quibble over Phelps’ wording. But now that military funerals are the target, they can no longer look away and pretend to be unaware of Fred and family.
Their reaction has been odd. It has mostly been “We are not like that. We love the sinner, hate the sin. God doesn’t hate fags, he just hates everything about them and wants us to make their lives as miserable as we possibly can”. (my phrasing, not theirs)
Perhaps the most bizarrely contrived notion comes from American Family Association, a rabid anti-gay activist group, who claims that because Phelps does not believe in redemption for gay people and because the AFA supports reorientation then therefore Phelps is just exactly like “homosexual activists” and they condemn both together. That’s the first time I’ve heard of the doctrine of predestination being contrasted to reorientation and the effect is amusing.
No doubt many who voted for this bill did so because it seemed to be the proper and caring thing to do. However, it seems to me that this silencing of Fred Phelps has more to do with halting the obvious comparison of his message to those who hold themselves out to be moral, than it does with compassion for the grieving.
I completely agree with you, Timothy. It reminds me of this that Mike Ditto wrote a while back (we had Phelps and co. in town here recently):
(Ok, that whole last part of that should be blockquoted…grrrr…why can’t the preview actually be what I’d see when it’s posted…isn’t that the point of “preview”?)
The only way to make sure people you agree with can speak is to support the rights of people you don’t agree with.
Eleanor Holmes Norton
The two former pastors who run the http://www.stupidchurchpeople.com website have interviewed Shirley Phelps Roper of godhatesfags fame for their podcast.
It’s a classic interview.
https://www.stupidchurchpeople.com/2006/05/stupid-on-steroids-podcast.html
I can’t believe I’m writing this, but of all the fundmentalist conservartive Christians out there, Fred Phelps is the one that I ‘respect’ the most. Why? Unlike the majority of conservative Christians, Phelps doesn’t sugarcoat his actions and beliefs. He goes straight to his point and for that, he is more honest than the other conservative folks that do not want to be branded as bigoted nutcases.
Not only that, but I believe many people exposed to his raw hatred has allowed them to understand a bit better the plight of LGBT people being bashed by religious leaders. So let him shout his hatred, because not only for his freedom of speech, but in the end, it will do more good than harm.
Every silver cloud has a tarnished lining, lol? To be honest, I’m not sure I care what their motivation was on this one; everyone deserves respect (or at least privacy) when laying a loved one to rest. There are times for protest and discussion, but that isn’t one of them. I would disagree with your first point and I doubt any First Amendment objection will survive on this.
I think there may be some misunderstanding about the nature of the Congressional Act. This covers National cemeteries, which are under federal purvue, i.e. the Feds have some influence in what happens at military funerals. It is up to the states to deal with the rest. If we have a beef, it’s with them. Last I read 14 states are working on such laws for all funerals, and I would imagine more will follow. I think invoking Mathew Shepherd in this particular way might be unfair.
I’m mixed on your third point. I tend to agree with your statement, While he was protesting gays, he didn’t get much attention. When he protested soldiers, people noticed. It’s unfortunate that this is so and, as I said, we should be asking our state legislators why. Fred Phelps and company have been allowed to do this way too long.
…this is a military funeral and has nothing to do with homosexuality. This soldier wasn’t gay!!
You didn’t mention where you got this but I can almost understand this reaction. Phelp’s band of nuts can be confusing at best. Someone responding this way to their onslaught at a military (or any funeral not for a gay person) funeral could easily be forgiven for not understanding the connection. I have trouble myself understanding how they manage to interject homosexuality into just about everything. I’m not sure that necessarily means they (the original person responding to your quote) would condone such at a “homosexual” funeral. They may, but we can’t tell from this statement.
I’m not sure what more can be done about Fred Phelps. In this case, however, I am just glad the action is finally being taken. If a few less families will be spared more pain at such a time, that’s a good thing no matter how it came about.
Here is another creepy video of Phelp’s daughter – pretty sick stuff.
David
Xeno said:
…but of all the fundmentalist conservartive Christians out there, Fred Phelps is the one that I ‘respect’ the most.
Are you seriously saying that Fred Phelps is a “fundamentalist conservative Christian”? To my mind that’s somewhat like calling John Wayne Gacy a “middled-aged gay man who liked to party”.
David
Many worthy comments. Thanks Timothy for starting off the discussion w/very valid points. I think we would all be better off if our society/country would abolish – or at least minimize – DOUBLE STANDARDS. This is what permits us to allow things like sexism/misogyny, elitism (the root of all racism/ethnocentrism), heterosexism/homophobia, classism, etc. to exist. IT’S TIME WE CALL EACH OTHER ON ALL OF IT!! WE ARE ALL IMPACTED BY EACH ONE OF THOSE ISMS – even when we don’t know it!!! If these vile acts are not appropriate at a soldier’s funeral, they are NO LESS INAPPROPRIATE at a gay person’s funeral — or a pedophile’s or Osama Bin Laden’s. When something is deemed right or wrong for 1, it must be so FOR ALL; else we begin the slip into the quagmire of double/triple . . . standards. What’s more WE ARE ALL ONE! 🙂
David said:
Phelps is an old-school five-point calvinist. I would say that definitely qualifies him as a God fearing ‘Christian’ fundamentalist, even though he’s an anomaly among the predominant Arminianist conservatives of today.
Posted by: Xeno at May 11, 2006 04:07 AM
I was referring to what he is, not what he says he is 😉
For my money, he is an anomaly among any group.
David
I am a bisexual ACLU activist who LOVES Ex-Gay Watch. I agree with the original article that this is a free speech issue. Flip it around and see how your opinion may change: Right now, several state legislatures are passing bills that criminalize anti-war groups like Cindy Sheehan if they list the names of fallen soldiers in a protest memorial against the Iraq War, in a cartoon, in an art exhibit, etc. without the consent of the next-of-kin. I really appreciate the Eleanor Holmes Norton quote above. I encourage everyone to learn more about the First Amendment. Fight hate speech with BETTER speech! We will win in the end without dismantling our civil rights and liberties in the process.
I see a follower of Rev Fred Phelps is taking the State of Kentucky to court to allow him to protest at military funerals. The state ACLU, is championing his cause.
David Roberts at May 11, 2006 12:28 AM
“Are you seriously saying that Fred Phelps is a “fundamentalist conservative Christian”?”
If he won’t say it, I will. Phelps may be an extreme example, but that extremism is more related to action than to belief.
There are many “fundamentalist conservative Christians” that do share Phelps’ beliefs about gay people. They might find his signs distasteful, but they do believe that Matthew Shepard is burning in Hell and that homosexuals are the enemies of God. They really do believe that gay-friendly churches are apostate and whorish. And while they might never say that God hates fags, they would say that homosexuals are a vile abomination to God, a stench in his nostrils, and make him vomit.
It is not Christian-bashing to acknowledge this.
David Roberts at May 11, 2006 12:18 AM
“I would disagree with your first point and I doubt any First Amendment objection will survive on this.”
Go read my first point again. I didn’t mention the First Amendment or say that funerals are the right venue for protest.
“I think invoking Mathew Shepherd in this particular way might be unfair.”
I should have been clearer. The Federal response was based on state laws doing the same thing. My point was that the movement to restrict protest action at funerals (be it at the state or Federal level) did not come about until military funerals were being picketed.
Fred Phelps did protest at Matthew Shepard’s funeral. Legislators did wait to pass legislation until it was good straight military victims. The comparison is relevant.
“Someone responding this way to their onslaught at a military (or any funeral not for a gay person) funeral could easily be forgiven for not understanding the connection.”
Of course; there isn’t a connection. What is not forgivable is the objection to being treated the same as gay people.
“Fred Phelps and company have been allowed to do this way too long.”
Of course they have. As have the KKK. And the Aryan Brotherhood. And both La Raza and the Minutemen. And the militant radical homosexual activists. And everyone else who has something unpopular to say.
Timothy said:
Phelps may be an extreme example, but that extremism is more related to action than to belief… It is not Christian-bashing to acknowledge this.
Re-read my post – I never said it was Christian bashing, just inaccurate (as illustrated by my absurd comparison). Phelps is so extreme as to be an anomaly. As much as I know there are people out there calling themselves Christian who also hate gays, Fred Phelps is not a fair representative of anyone but Fred Phelps. We may just have two different views on this.
I didn’t mention the First Amendment or say that funerals are the right venue for protest.
In your first point you said:
While a funeral may hardly seem the appropriate time and place for criticism of governmental policy, I am generally bothered when the government begins to make exceptions to free speech that are designed to limit those who disagree with them.
My reference to the First Amendment was taken from your “exceptions to free speech”; free speech and First Amendment are so often interchangeable in the US. Did you not mean to refer to it here? As for the venue for protest, I may have misinterpreted you. It seemed you were saying that generally, one wouldn’t think funeral protests were acceptable but you also seemed to posit that it might be preferable to government censorship of those who disagree. Taken outside this argument, I would generally agree with the second half of that statement.
My point was that the movement to restrict protest action at funerals (be it at the state or Federal level) did not come about until military funerals were being picketed.
Yes, I agreed with your statement, “While he was protesting gays, he didn’t get much attention. When he protested soldiers, people noticed“. Sad but true.
In the end you compare Fred Phelps and his funeral protests to other “unpopular” groups. These groups, along with Phelps, should be allowed to speak their mind and be protected by the First Amendment. I don’t see that limiting how close they can come to a funeral, military or civilian, is weakening the free speech rights of any of these groups, including Phelps. He can speak in the “public square” as much as he wants, but a private ceremony where family and friends are saying goodbye to loved ones is just his perverted way of gaining a captive audience; people who would not stay and listen if not for the occasion.
When I said that they have been allowed to do this way too long, I was referring to the disruption of funerals, not their speech in general. Since the ACLU is getting involved, I guess we will find out more about this argument as it unfolds.
David Roberts
Hmmm…
How is Fred Phelps different from Michael Marcavage and Repent America?
Both support the execution of homosexuals; both parade with defamatory signs; both interfere with other groups’ freedom of speech by using megaphones to broadcast foul language couched in the form of children’s rhymes and “songs.”
Mike A. said:
How is Fred Phelps different from Michael Marcavage and Repent America?
Does Repent America also protest at funerals (I don’t know)? If so, perhaps not much. As I just posted in another thread, I may be confusing “fundamentalist” and “conservative”, though in both cases above I can’t call them Christian (regardless of the modifier) with a straight face (no pun intended). They can call themselves what they like, but it won’t make it so. Christian means to be “Christ-like” and to call Fred Phelps that is truly perverse in my opinion.
Basically, I’m just sick of these people.
David Roberts
The bottom line is that something needs to be done about Fred Phelps. His little compound is another Waco waiting to happen. Who knows what kind of a legacy of hate he has passed down to his followers who do not question his cult.
In some ways, however, Mr. Phelps has actually helped the GLBT community because he is so outrageous and bigoted that people see how dangerous bigotry, especially religion based bigotry actually can be.
I’m not sure if this is true in every state but I know it’s true in a great many – it doesn’t matter the person being buried – if it’s a funeral, in many states there cannot be a protest in or around the grave site for a specified time before and after the burial cerimony – some states even cover the funeral home, and the homes of the realatives of the dead with this protecton as well.