I am sooooo pleased about this. Maybe these moron's now will not be able to afford to go picketing and it will bankrupt their whole organisation.
Dirty bigotted nasty little fascist bitch Shirley and her equally mentally retarded dithering stoopid old goat of a father can now hopefully just retire to the gutter they so rightly deserve to be in.
I hope they can't (as they are confident in doing) get this reversed.


From the BBC
A church whose members cheered a soldier's death as "punishment" for US tolerance of homosexuality has been told to pay $10.9m (£5.2m) in damages.
The Westboro Baptist Church was taken to court by the father of Lance Cpl Matthew Snyder, a marine who died serving in Iraq in March 2006.

The church cited its constitutional right to free speech in its defence.

But Albert Snyder's lawyer urged the jury to ensure the damages were high enough to stop the church campaigning.

Members of the church - based in Topeka, Kansas - have denounced homosexuality for years, initially targeting the funerals of Aids victims.

But they later extended their pickets to the funerals of soldiers, who they say are being punished by God because of the US' tolerance of homosexuality.

Last year they caused outrage when they attended the funeral of Matthew Snyder with signs reading "Thank God for dead soldiers" and "You're going to hell".

On Wednesday, the jury ordered the church and three of its leaders to pay $2.9m in compensatory damages, and an additional $8m for invasion of privacy and for causing emotional distress.

Albert Snyder's attorney, Craig Trebilcock, had urged jurors to agree an amount "that says 'Don't do this' in Maryland again. Do not bring your circus of hate to Maryland again".

Defence attorney Jonathan Katz's argument that the $2.9m in compensatory damages already far exceeded the defendants' net worth and would be enough to "bankrupt them and financially destroy them" was ignored.

The church, which is unaffiliated with any major denomination, is headed by Fred Phelps. Most of its 70-odd members belong to his extended family.

"I hope it's enough to deter them from doing this to other families. It was not about the money. It was about getting them to stop," he said, according to Reuters news agency.

Members of the church, however, reportedly greeted the verdict with tight-lipped smiles.

"It will take the 4th Circuit of Appeals a few minutes to reverse this silly thing," said Rev Phelps.

Daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper - co-defendant along with another daughter, Rebecca Phelps-Davis - called the verdict a blow against free speech and vowed to continue picketing military funerals.

Are these the morons that Louis Theroux did a documentary about? Either way, the verdict is great news. Hope it doesn't get reversed and drives the lot of them to gay prostitution just to survive. There's the Christian in me coming out.....

Yeah, these are the slime that Louis Theroux did the doc on...
They really rile me... free speech an all but no way should they be allowed to picket soldiers funerals saying they got what they deserved.. started with the young 21yr old guy who was tied to a fence and was beaten to death for being gay back in 1999 I think, they then picketed his funeral saying he got what he deserved as God hates fags....

I just sent them a "lovely" heartfelt email via their website :devil:

:lmaao: :lmaao:

That fate would indeed seem most fair for these scumbags.

I have a feeling the freedom of speech laws might well swing their appeal unfortunately.... but I do hope not. :pray:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,220...ed=networkfront

Just looking at the picture here, one lady holding up a sign saying "God Hates you." Now, i'm not a Christian, but i'm pretty sure that's definitely *not* the message that Christians are supposed to be spreading :shrug:

I think their family is a little incestuous too.. they all seem to decend from one main guy...
Think the bible has something to say about that too..

Are these the guys behind the Godhatesfags website? They got into the shit a while back cos they made all their kids wear "God hates Fags" t-shirts - some as young as 5 years old. That almost amused me (not exactly the most holy of wording is it?) but interrupting funerals with their inane garbage is an absolute disgrace. I hope the devil f*cks them up the ass in Hell after God sends them there.

No. As a Christian, myself, I find their behavior very distasteful and it reflects badly on the Church. I would not wish horrible things upon them, but would rather pray that they "see the light" and realize that what their doing is far from what God would want.

To be technical - it's not a fine, which would be a punishment imposed by the state for criminal behaviour, but damages payable to the family because of a civil liability.

Frankly, I think those people are appalling, but I am slightly uncomfortable that they should face a damages claim of $ millions.

There is no way that is proportionate to the 'damage' or hurt they so unthinkingly and gleefully caused - the unfortunate man is dead and cannot be brought back. My view is that people like that damn themselves through their own conduct and it is good to see that society's reaction is a mixture of horror, anger, and incredulity. That's enough I think.

Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are too important to be swatted aside by our desire to see these awful people suffer.

yep, I think most Christians would in all honesty :hug:

I got the feeling the aim was to stop them from continuing their behaviour rather than necessarily the fine being in proportion to the harm caused, if that makes sense?

But i guess it brings up a much wider issue of freedom of speech, and where we draw the limits of that freedom. :shrug:

Sometimes it can be difficult deciding where to draw the line on freedom of speech, but harrassing a family at their son's funeral is way on the wrong side of the line, IMO.

And as far as freedom of religion goes . . . . well, this group is really more of a hate-group disquised as a church. :(

oh, i agree entirely - this is abhorrent behaviour.

But it's a fairly big issue in this country at the moment - we already have various "incitement to cause hatred" laws with relation to religion and race, and I don't know if it's been passed or is just under discussion but there may end up being a law against inctiting hatred against homosexuality.

which brings up all sorts of questions about free speech and exactly what inciting hatred is :shrug:

It's the age old classic - the Liberal thinkers' "'no harm principle" again. You are free to do and say what you like, provided you don't cause harm to others in the process. Of course you can never draw an absolute firm line that shall never be crossed - like most things in life it's all about common sense and responsible citizenship. Don't they teach that in schools there?

Actually the fine is for invasion of privacy and causing emotional distress, and technically is nothing to do with the views of the people from this church.
It's hard to argue with these kind of religious fanatics since they believe this stuff comes from God, but i think the views expressed on this thread indicate how out of touch these miscreants are,-certainly it's hard to imagine this happening in the UK, but the US takes it's religion far more seriously-thank God for secularism
:unsure:
I guess the real question here is what are the limits of free speech.

The question here is who decides what constitutes a religion?
After all many Christians genuinely believe Jewish children who were killed in the gas chambers will burn in hell, now i find that absurd and grotesque, but it's the logical conclusion of a certain belief system, show me a religion that doesn't give profound offence to one group or another.
I'm with Voltaire on this 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say i'? these words are as alive now as when they were written in the 18th century, and the liberal tenet of free speech has served us very well since then. We must defend free speech or everything we say or think may itself be come under threat of censorship.

I really believe you're off-base about that. As I said, I don't think this is about religion at all, but about hatred toward homosexuals, couched in a religious context to try to justify it. Even though they call themselves "Baptist", this group is not a part of any organized Christian denomination. So I don't think it has anything to do about American views on religion, other than the fact that we do value freedom of religion and separation of church and state, so these folks try to get away with such harrassment by calling it a religious stand.

We are reaching a very clear position in decadent Western society ( ;) ) where religious morality is parting, and in some cases entirely severed, from what the majority accept.

This fault line appears very clearly in relation to homosexuality, but it is showing large also in the issue of abortions.

Until relatively recently (I am talking 10's of years - these things happen slowly) the UK (and I suspect US) laws reflected conventional Christian morality. That included the fact that such evidence as there is in the Bible can, at the very least, be respectably argued to show that the Christian God regards homosexuality as sinful. Perhaps the most simple route to that conclusion is that sex is not supposed to take place outside marriage, and Christ does not seem to recognise same-sex marriage.

Whatever your view on what the Bible says, it is doubtless within the realms of a reasonable understanding of his religion for a Christian to believe that his/her God regards homosexuality as a sin.

That is way out of line with what UK and US legislation now enshrines. I don't know, but I would think a majority of the people, who, whilst they may not like it for a number of reasons, think homosexuality is not inherently 'wrong' in any sense worthy of moral or criminal sensure and should be permitted and homosexuals left alone.

We may in time reach the point when legislatures are going to have to ask themselves what is the difference between promoting discrimination against homosexuals per se, and doing pretty much the same but describing it as being the result of your religious conscience that you are free to parade as a constitutional right.

The worst answer for such questions is usually legislation. The best answer, I think, is for religious leaders to make it clear to their flock again and again that it is for God to decide what is the punishment for any sins, not for us to judge one another and that whilst it is permissible, if asked (and even if not), to indicate your belief that God thinks homosexuality is a sin, you should limit your action in response to that view whilst on earth to avoid causing unnecessary offence and to comply with the other Christian virtues that are expected of you (which I don't believe includes shouting offensive slogans at a funeral). You should also respect the law and the right of self-governance of a majority in a free society - especially if the bundle of rights enshrines your right to religious belief (whether as a minority or not).

I also think that the best answer for the rest of society includes ignoring or ridiculing what such people say and proceeding against them if they commit any crimes in supposed furtherance of their beliefs.

This issue shows clearly how the contexts in which so-called 'fundamental' rights are laid down can change with time and how they can be abused by those relying upon them.

I don't like this verdict in a civil case - if they committed a crime such as harrassment then they can be prosecuted, if they did not then I don't think that 'punitive' damages designed to shut them up via the back door for noisily expressing their (albiet odious) points of view is attractive. Invasion of privacy does not sound very convincing to me if the protest took place in the open on public property.

After all - there are plenty of people who could (have) argue(d) that some of Peter Tatchell's or Stonewall's protests are similarly offensive - but freedom of speech includes the freedom to cause grave offence. Some of you express approval of this verdict, but the law is too blunt an instrument to tell the difference between views that are fashionable and wrong, fashionable and right, unfashionable and wrong or unfashionable and right.

It may not be about religion, or it may be, i don't have a big insight into what goes on in the church, but whether it is pure hate outside religion, or whether religiously based is not central to the point i was making. My point is about free speech-my defence of Voltaire, was a defence of the enlightenment principle of free speech for all groups whether one agrees with the views held or not.
I do not advocate special defences or legal privileges for people who are religious, part of a religious cult, a political group or any other group one might think of.
Logically i would be in favour of the disestablishment of the church of England.
The point i was making about who decides what constitutes a religion is a purely philosophical one, and one that usually more pragmatically than philosophically answered.

The point about hate is a separate question, who is allowed to hate who? and what are the limits in terms of showing that hatred in a civil society.
If I feel inclined to hate these church members, should i be stopped from hating them? should i be allowed to write articles? organise a demo against them?
denouncing them as bigots, idiots-people who havn't a clue about religion or the bible?
Surely i should have the freedom to denounce them and convince others of their idiocy, but if i can traduce them, can they be free to deride and despise any group i might be a member of? i might be gay, black, a christian, marxist, even liberal democrat for god sake, they have to be free to speak against that group as long as that speaking out stops short of advocating or commanding violence against members of that group.
Of course there are limits to free speech, and picketing a funeral is surely that because the privacy of the family was clearly infringed-ones daily life must not be impinged upon in that way, and that in essence is the basis of this prosecution against the church.

I agree with Barrystar who has written eloquently about this about this, freedom of speech also means the freedom to cause offence too-if we invoke the state at every juncture we all will have it used against us at some point, and that way is the route to totalitarianism.

My defence of Voltaire is a defence of the freedom that has spoken out against the churches stand on homosexuality for hundreds of years, it is that freedom that has brought us to where we are today in the west, where the overwhelming majority of people find Westboro church's members actions despicable.
If we didn't have free speech we may still be acquiescing blindly to religious orthodoxy.

I think you make a good point, BT, but you had not even mentioned Voltaire in the post I was replying to above. B)

this charming group have now announced that they will be picketing any memorial services held for Heath Ledger, managing to call him a pervert and announcing that he is a "Fag-Enabler" and burning in hell in the process. What an utterly charming bunch of people :rolleyes: